Ed Willes: Canucks' Linden revamp left in the dust by Leafs' Shana-plan

[Rob_Zepp]

On 7/8/2018 at 2:33 PM, oldnews said:

do you like pie?

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Thanks for this, Zepp. I've read the quoted post and your awesome meme like five times now, and it just makes me laugh harder each time.

[TheGuardian_]

8 minutes ago, oldnews said:

This part, the 'hockey talk' is more difficult to engage with, because it's straight up comical.  Narrative.  Fortune-telling.  Call it what you want.  No basis in fact, reality, etc.

 

The team does still have veteran assets to 'speed up the rebuild' if it elected to do so.  I think they'll elect to 'speed up the rebuild' by keeping them lol.

 

The caught in the middle for a decade of mediocrity is an ironic commentary after having just declared the Leafs comparison irrelevent lol.   You did a pretty sound job of describing the re-re-rebuilds of a decade of Leafing haha.  It's of utmost convenience.  Hey, we just started the rebuild here in Vancouver!   What incredible progress Benning has made in mere months!

Not really, when TO "blew up" their team they made trades of established vets and took on bad contracts, they have had 35 draft picks over the last 4 years, and entire year's worth extra picks, 8 more than the Nucks. The average pick could be worked out but at a quick glance TO's round average is rounds 2.75 to 3.25 and the Nucks average are rounds 3.75 to 4.5. TO had - 16 picks out of 35 over 4 years in the firs 3 rounds , Vancouver had - 11 picks out of 27 picks over 4 years in the first 3 rounds  

 

It is not fortune telling to see that the Nucks have Tanev and Edler that may get top picks in return, but who after that? Horvat, he is going to be a 5 year vet. When TO started the "plan" they were not bottom feeders for several years, some of their players still remembered being on a winning NHL team. The asset value of Canuck players is governed by how good the team is, seeing they are the 2nd worst team in the league over the last 3 years is not guessing. Reviewing how this management group has introduced prospects/picks onto the team is not guessing, it is their style or policy.

 

Looking at what happened in Edmonton, something everyone should be aware of, and seeing the similarities here is alarming and should be because it has all happened before, ignoring and not willing to see what happened is like dropping out of school before they taught arithmetic. Wanting to believe that isn't happening here doesn't make it so, the similarities are just that and some areas cannot be direct comparison, but some are getting very close, example, over paying vets to get them to play here, multiple years of losing, no late picks making the team.

 

It is even more interesting is that Vancouver, TO and Edmonton were almost in step with each other, both cleaned house, new pres., new gm, new coach, both have played two rounds of the playoffs with Edmonton winning one round, both under the league average age by a year or more, both larger than league average, both have a "generational" forward, both have made multiple trades for NHL players/picks.

 

[oldnews]

10 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

 

 

Need something to wash that down lol?

[oldnews]

5 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

 

It is even more interesting is that Vancouver, TO and Edmonton were almost in step with each other, both cleaned house, new pres., new gm, new coach, both have played two rounds of the playoffs with Edmonton winning one round, both under the league average age by a year or more, both larger than league average, both have a "generational" forward, both have made multiple trades for NHL players/picks.

 

and they're all lottery championz!

and they've all been rebuilding for a decade.

 

Stay the course Vancouver!  you may have another half decade of top 10 picks to wait, and you may never win any lotteries, but.....the timelines are comparable and inspirational!

[TheGuardian_]

35 minutes ago, oldnews said:

We are one first round exit behind the Leafs in the Benning Spamaplan eras.

We have to give them that.

 

Spam 2

Benning 1

 

 

Benning ruined the 'rebuild' by spending a year trying to rehabilitate value on a post-Torture-fella roster....

Ideally, that score woulda been 2-0, but what were the Canucks doing?   Inexplicable!  (at least in twitter depth).

 

Spam-plan on the other hand executed lottery to perfection!    Who could compete with that?  Geniuz!

 

 

However, at least Benning didn't waste 2nd round picks on rentals - Thomas Plekanec, Brian Boyle -, for a hopeless playoff 'run.'

 

Benning 2

Spam 0

 

But that score doesn't count....because....the Leafs are still 'rebuilding' lol.

Coolest 'comparison' ever.

 

I understand the rivalry, but how many years go by before he writing on the wall is pertinent, I know this thread is limited to a TO comparison but there are many other teams that have surpassed this group in the same time.

 

This team is in the rails now, they have to stay in high draft positions for the next 3 years or so or they are in danger of being "meh". Playoffs are not the "end all, be all" of the game, the team will need 9 top forwards and 5 top 4 dmen if they don't have a "stud". That can be accomplished with another 3 top 7 picks and trading a vet or two, in 3 years will Sven fetch much? Or Granlund?

 

Tank for all they are worth, get the #1 overall next year and will that save their jobs? Linden jokingly said at the presser for the draft being here next year that the team had paid the price. A joke or a curse?

[mikeyman109]

19 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

I understand the rivalry, but how many years go by before he writing on the wall is pertinent, I know this thread is limited to a TO comparison but there are many other teams that have surpassed this group in the same time.

 

This team is in the rails now, they have to stay in high draft positions for the next 3 years or so or they are in danger of being "meh". Playoffs are not the "end all, be all" of the game, the team will need 9 top forwards and 5 top 4 dmen if they don't have a "stud". That can be accomplished with another 3 top 7 picks and trading a vet or two, in 3 years will Sven fetch much? Or Granlund?

 

Tank for all they are worth, get the #1 overall next year and will that save their jobs? Linden jokingly said at the presser for the draft being here next year that the team had paid the price. A joke or a curse?

The problem is the impatience of trying to trade our way into contention sooner than is realistic. We know we need top 4 D . despite the draft of Hughes and possibly Juolevi we do not have any other players ready to be top 4.

Our right side up front needs addressing as well. The competition should be better this October but we still need to keep drafting potential stars, not just players

 

The only part of the equation I dont see is trading a veteran. The Veterans we have just signed we will still need, The ones that have been here forever either have NMC or are not what other teams want.

[oldnews]

47 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

I understand the rivalry, but how many years go by before he writing on the wall is pertinent, I know this thread is limited to a TO comparison but there are many other teams that have surpassed this group in the same time.

Wadr, ti makes far more sense, instead, to look at our actual 'peers' in the contention period..  Not the bottomfeeders of our contending period - but our actual peers/comparables.  Boohoo, we're 'behind' teams that bottomfed for a decade.   What a dumb metric / standard to misapply.

 

Boston

L.A.

Chicago

 

Wouldn't trade places with any of them, wadr.

 

Boston has clearly managed to execute a successful 'retool' approach - and have not only sustained their competitiveness, but have added some good prospects, young players in the process.   I see that in a dual sense - one was advantageous because they had a younger core that they were able to flip for serious futures (ie Lucic, Hamilton...) - and some that are still in their primes (ie Bergeron, ratface)  so on that count I think they had a favourable context to work with.   But on the other hand, they have drafted and developed very well - so while I thought they should be transitioning, they on the other hand forged ahead and surprised me with their performance on the ice - and as a management group.

I still probably would not trade places with them, because I'm not sure how sustainable their approach will remain when they start losing Chara types, or Bergeron declines, etc - however they have shown a lot of industriousness that probably should not be under-estimated.

 

On the other hand - Chicago - is not a team I envy at this point.  L.A. is postponing a 'rething' and going further 'all-in' - and maybe they're at a crossroads where they don't have a lot of choice.  They may do well the next few years, but will probably take some extremely efficient work to avoid a significant downswing once they're no longer carried by the Kopitar, Quick, and Doughty types in their core.

 

Detroit

San Jose

 

The Wings were also a comparable / 'peer' of ours in that era - absolutely would not trade places with them.  Their management group is not what it used to be, and their ability to sustain themselves finally grounded.

The Shards....well, they're somewhat a study in what Boston also did, although I don't think I like their chances of sustaining as much as I do Boston's - and among SJ's core - Thornton is 39, Pavelski is 33, Burns is 33....they too may be facing a situation like the L.A. KIngs.

 

But, but let's 'compare' ourselves to teams that were bottomfeeders for a half decade or more while this team was contending.

That's relatively absurd wadr.  But it makes for good noob drama.

When you actually look at realistic 'cycles' of contending teams, then you put this team's realistic trajectory in perspective.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 hours ago, Darius said:

The reason I brought up Kessel is because you listed the years and draft positions of each team making it look like the difference wasnt that big...im pointing that in  2 of those years leaf draft picks were used as currency to obtain a top line forward...... and ..... in the 5 or so years leading up to when the management teams took over the leafs had a clear advantage in terms of what they accumulated BECAUSE of the draft.  The only time the Canucks picked higher in those 5 or 6 years was 2013 because it cost them a major young player from their system (Schneider)

That’s a misrepresentation as the picks traded weren’t known commodities.  It wasn’t like the leafs traded the 2nd overall and 9th overall for Kessel.  The leafs expected Kessel to boost them into the playoffs not finish near the bottom for all the leafs knew those picks would have been 20+.  Either way it resulted in Shanahan inheriting Kessel.  Just as JB inherited Kesler who had more value due to being on a better contract?  Does the result of how those players were acquire have any affect on Shanahan or JB when they started in 2014? No

 

So again, if the excuse is that leafs had a running head start at rebuilding prior to Shanahan, then we should easily be able to see those obtained assets on the roster today….  Listing those assets would be far more meaningful than this false narrative about draft position.  Draft position does not automatically mean assets as soon many are just assuming

 

Quote

  So in the end, the way I see it, when Shanny took over he had Kadri, Kessel, JVR, Reilly, Gardiner, Brown, Hyman...

 

 

Sure and JB had Daniel, Henrik, Kesler, Edler, Tanev, Juice, Hammer, Horvat, Markstrom, when he took over.  That’s a lot of talent.

 

Quote

 

His best players were around 25 or younger, whereas most Bennings best players were around 30 or over at the time. 

Why do you keep reverting back to age? What does that have to do with where the leafs are today?  Please answer that, did the fact that Bozak was only 27 when Shanny took over mean he brought more to the leafs rebuild thank Henrik did to Vancouver? All JVR, Bozak and Komarov were, was placeholders. Them being younger has no impact on them were better, because they weren’t The fact that all left the leafs roster with NO future assets in return undeniably proves they were just placeholders.  The age of a placeholder has ZERO impact on a rebuild. 

 

 

Quote

Is it any surprise that Toronto looks better today? 

How does a 28 year old JVR a 31 year old bozak and a 30 year old komarov make the leafs look better today.

 

 

 

Quote

Regarding Kessel vs Kesler return: its debatable.  Kapanen + Andersen (the 2 main returns) are not too shabby IMHO.

Leafs didnt get Andersen from the penguins. They got a 30th overall. Leafs also had the 31st overall pick that year so with or without the kessel trade they still end up with Andersen. 

 

Leafs sent kessel (retained) Briggs, 2nd round pick, and erixon. 

For kapanen, conditional 1st, a 3rd round pick. And 2 cap dumps. 

 

Canucks got a 24th overall a top 4 d and a top 9 center. No cap retention 

 

Quote

 You made it sound like fact that if the Canucks purposely pulled the plug on the season like the Leafs did they would have won the lotto too.  20% chance is not a sure thing.

 

When did I say that. All I said is the leafs bought more tickets for the raffle. Perhaps if the Canucks did the same we also have Mathews instead of juolevi. 

 

Quote

 

The Canucks have been in a position to draft higher than 5 more than once but they have not had the same lotto luck.  Also, i dont like admiring the tactic of purposely manipulating your roster to finish dead last - in my mind it is not honorable, lacks integrity, and if everyone did it the sport could look as scripted as the WWE.   

 

 

 

The point is that the leafs best players were about 25 or younger back in 2013.  most of the Canucks best players were around 30 or over ...many of which were unmovable or hard to move. 

The leafs best players were yet to come. Same as the Canucks. Especially when we’re talking about the rebuild. There’s a reason why day one after getting hired shanny came out and said we’re rebuilding. It’s becuase the players they had weren’t good enough to build a cup contender and that why 90% of there roster has turned over since taking the job. Many of them leaving for no future return. Hence once again them being 4 year placeholders. 

 

Quote

 

We are comparing starting points of when the management teams took over.  If your best players are like 33 at the time vs 25 or under....which team will look better in 3 or 4 years?  

Again with the age. Leafs today are ranked a top team. What does JVR bozak or kessels age have to do with we leafs roster today. Even last year. Twins were better than bozak and JVR. Does bozak simply being younger trump the fact hank outproduced him. 

 

Quote

At the end of the day I'm not here bashing Toronto's management. They have done a pretty good job and have had some good luck (Mathews, and Tavares wanting to go home) whereas Benning has had 0 luck from the lottery slot machine.

 

And I’m not trying to pump the leafs tired. I think they jumped the gun and started the accent to soon by rushing things. I just find it extremely hypocritical of some fans on here that think the Canucks rebuild is a perfect success that has gone exactly as planned, while the leafs is nothing but luck. Leafs had a Good start to a rebuild and they have a really strong future. It would really suck to see them win it but that doesn’t mean we have to make up excuses as to why there currently better than us. 

[Alflives]

Good post @ForsbergTheGreat

Regardless, the Leafs still have zero defence, and a lot of very soft forwards.  I think, even with adding JT, the Leafs take a step back.  It’s going to be soooo much fun watching their whole little world go up in smoke.  

#LeafswillneverwinaCupwithNylander

[spook007]

2 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Wouldn't you prefer to know something other than the company line? "There is no way farm fishing is infecting the oceans". "ICBC is increasing their rates only because of accidents". Just the ICBC thing alone, Premier Campbell off loaded the entire Motor Vehicle Branch and all it's expenses onto ICBC, a government operation, buildings, salaries, everything. All the costs that can not be recovered, a total loss AND ICBC can increase rates to compensate, if the government did that that would be "taxation" and subject to public scrutiny and scorn, this is essentially hidden taxation. But who would want to know something like that? Or that the fish farms have been spewing infected byproducts infecting wild stock for.....guess what....the exact timing of declining salmon runs, no salmon, Orca's starve, everything else is blamed, but they say it isn't/didn't happen.

There are enough "salesmen" paid by these outfits, a little unadulterated or uncensored information always makes the "pros" react.

 

This team has been poorly run, any person could do what these "experts" have done except maybe sell the public that they should be forgiven because they didn't know how to do the job and had to learn first so they should not be held responsible for their 4 years on the job.  

For the most yes if thats what you call it ‘company line’.... 

Nobody here complains about critical articles, but this is not about a critical article, but this is a constant flow of negativity....

 

And I disagree totally about this club has been run. 

[spook007]

2 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Just one thing about this, I did state "most" of the media, but the few that didn't ride the train had bigger ratings and ended up on TV.

 

And......?

so slagging off a sports franchise and behaving like children should be a gateway to TV?

God help us all.....

[Darius]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

That’s a misrepresentation as the picks traded weren’t known commodities.  It wasn’t like the leafs traded the 2nd overall and 9th overall for Kessel.  The leafs expected Kessel to boost them into the playoffs not finish near the bottom for all the leafs knew those picks would have been 20+.  Either way it resulted in Shanahan inheriting Kessel.  Just as JB inherited Kesler who had more value due to being on a better contract?  Does the result of how those players were acquire have any affect on Shanahan or JB when they started in 2014? No

 

So again, if the excuse is that leafs had a running head start at rebuilding prior to Shanahan, then we should easily be able to see those obtained assets on the roster today….  Listing those assets would be far more meaningful than this false narrative about draft position.  Draft position does not automatically mean assets as soon many are just assuming

 

 

 

Sure and JB had Daniel, Henrik, Kesler, Edler, Tanev, Juice, Hammer, Horvat, Markstrom, when he took over.  That’s a lot of talent.

 

Why do you keep reverting back to age? What does that have to do with where the leafs are today?  Please answer that, did the fact that Bozak was only 27 when Shanny took over mean he brought more to the leafs rebuild thank Henrik did to Vancouver? All JVR, Bozak and Komarov were, was placeholders. Them being younger has no impact on them were better, because they weren’t The fact that all left the leafs roster with NO future assets in return undeniably proves they were just placeholders.  The age of a placeholder has ZERO impact on a rebuild. 

 

 

How does a 28 year old JVR a 31 year old bozak and a 30 year old komarov make the leafs look better today.

 

 

 

Leafs didnt get Andersen from the penguins. They got a 30th overall. Leafs also had the 31st overall pick that year so with or without the kessel trade they still end up with Andersen. 

 

Leafs sent kessel (retained) Briggs, 2nd round pick, and erixon. 

For kapanen, conditional 1st, a 3rd round pick. And 2 cap dumps. 

 

Canucks got a 24th overall a top 4 d and a top 9 center. No cap retention 

 

When did I say that. All I said is the leafs bought more tickets for the raffle. Perhaps if the Canucks did the same we also have Mathews instead of juolevi. 

 

The leafs best players were yet to come. Same as the Canucks. Especially when we’re talking about the rebuild. There’s a reason why day one after getting hired shanny came out and said we’re rebuilding. It’s becuase the players they had weren’t good enough to build a cup contender and that why 90% of there roster has turned over since taking the job. Many of them leaving for no future return. Hence once again them being 4 year placeholders. 

 

Again with the age. Leafs today are ranked a top team. What does JVR bozak or kessels age have to do with we leafs roster today. Even last year. Twins were better than bozak and JVR. Does bozak simply being younger trump the fact hank outproduced him. 

 

And I’m not trying to pump the leafs tired. I think they jumped the gun and started the accent to soon by rushing things. I just find it extremely hypocritical of some fans on here that think the Canucks rebuild is a perfect success that has gone exactly as planned, while the leafs is nothing but luck. Leafs had a Good start to a rebuild and they have a really strong future. It would really suck to see them win it but that doesn’t mean we have to make up excuses as to why there currently better than us. 

 

Honestly Forsberg, i dont think its worth my time to go back and forth with you tit for tat.  I must admit that you are one of the more knowledgeable guys in here but your style of conversation has a condescending tone where the back and forth becomes more like a lecture than a hockey conversation. One of your final statements sums it up: " just find it extremely hypocritical of some fans on here that think the Canucks rebuild is a perfect success that has gone exactly as planned, while the leafs is nothing but luck."  Ive never said that anywhere.    Ill say my final words here and move on because i dont expect we are going to convince each other or have an enjoyable conversation.

 

It is baffling to me how anyone can argue the teams had a similar starting point when the managers took over. The leafs were able to draft higher for most of the 5 or 6 years leading up to 2013-204 and as a result were able to either use those drafts as currency or were able to pick a good young player in the draft.  Sure they did not know that Kessel would literally cost them a 2nd and a 9th but at the same time I can only assume that they were comfortable giving up first rounders because they had already drafted high in the frist round a couple times already.   Back in 2013-2014 the only scorer 25 year old or less in the top 10 that that Canucks had was Zack Kassian. The leafs had JVR, Kessel, Kadri, Gardiner and Reilly - all 25 or under and all finished top 10 in leafs scoring.  Shanny was set up with a better younger core.  Benning's best guys were starting or already in their decline, and were hinged with challenging contracts to move.  In my mind this was a big advantage for Shanny.  How does JVR help them now? Well he doesnt.  But he did help them look good last year, and he helped a guy like Mathews develop in a winning environment.

 

Kesler vs Kessel trade value:  Kesler basically destroys his GMs negotiating leverage by demanding a 2 team trade list and im supposed to think that Kesler had better trade value? Ok. Sure.

 

regarding Andersen: it was the pick they got from the Kessel trade that got them Andersen

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/leafs-acquire-frederik-andersen-anaheim/

Toronto used one piece of the return for Phil Kessel in the deal, swinging the 30th overall pick, once belonging to the Penguins, over to the Ducks in exchange for Andersen.

 

I dont know why you keep bringing up Bozak, i didnt even consider him as one of the young good players the leafs had.  Sedin is better than Bozak sure.  But to make my point clear as to why I bring up age....Hypotheticaly, in 2015-2016 if you were told you had to pick one player between Bo Horvat and H Sedin on a rebuilding team who would you take?  I would take Horvat even though he produced less at the time  I would pick him  because of his age and because how much easier it would be to get a better return if I had to move him.  This line of thinking encapsulates why I think that Shanny had a better predicament with his younger core than Benning did.

 

[bloodycanuckleheads]

3 hours ago, Darius said:

 You made it sound like fact that if the Canucks purposely pulled the plug on the season like the Leafs did they would have won the lotto too.  20% chance is not a sure thing.

Actually, it would have been 100%.  The Canucks were in a position to guarantee themselves last-place overall - but, instead, they won their way through a pointless California road-trip (sound familiar?).  If they'd thrown the last handful of games, they would have gotten Toronto's balls in the lottery.  And, those numbers ended up winning the lottery (and would have gotten us Auston Matthews).

 

Just like this year.  There was a time when we could have lost the rest of the way and gotten the ping-pong balls that won Dahlin.  But, we chose to win instead.

[TheGuardian_]

9 minutes ago, spook007 said:

And......?

so slagging off a sports franchise and behaving like children should be a gateway to TV?

God help us all.....

Market Researcher: 'The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes. The average ********* fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.'
*********: 'How can that be?'
Market Researcher: 'Answer most commonly given? "I want to see what he'll say next."'
*********: 'Okay, fine. But what about the people who hate *******?'
Market Researcher: 'Good point. The average ********* hater listens for two and a half hours a day.'
********: 'But if they hate him, why do they listen?'
Market Researcher: 'Most common answer? "I want to see what he'll say next."'

 

Hmmmm…..works for social media as well. Anyone can be Vanilla.

But I am not even being that negative really, apart from my thought that this team has made many errors and missed many opportunities I don't really rag on the players, they are doing the best they can, I will use a particular player as an example of something such as using up a roster spot for a prospect, but I don't name a prospect or size, the size issue mostly because I watched a small player attempting and failing to get the puck away from a much larger one many times. I even state it isn't just one small player, it is the number of them. Larger players have much better odds of winning board battles or screening in front of the net, smaller players will almost have to walk the line for penalties to win a battle, crosscheck flagrantly, holding, "can opener" or being getting pushed/knocked down. A small team will rely on the "rush" and PP for scoring. In the playoffs how many "Wilson" hits will Stecher take or Hughes when checks are getting finished?

[Darius]

6 minutes ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

Actually, it would have been 100%.  The Canucks were in a position to guarantee themselves last-place overall - but, instead, they won their way through a pointless California road-trip (sound familiar?).  If they'd thrown the last handful of games, they would have gotten Toronto's balls in the lottery.  And, those numbers ended up winning the lottery (and would have gotten us Auston Matthews).

 

Just like this year.  There was a time when we could have lost the rest of the way and gotten the ping-pong balls that won Dahlin.  But, we chose to win instead.

2 problems with this

1) its in retrospet.  the canucks had no idea whose balls would be the winning balls

2) why couldnt the other bottom 5 teams do the same.  might as well have everyone throw games.  IT would become a gong show, teams fighting it out for the playoffs would have scripted results when they played a bottom 5 team throwing games.

Nice sport that would turn into.  Maybe WWE is more up your alley?

 

 

[TheGuardian_]

15 minutes ago, Darius said:

2 problems with this

1) its in retrospet.  the canucks had no idea whose balls would be the winning balls

2) why couldnt the other bottom 5 teams do the same.  might as well have everyone throw games.  IT would become a gong show, teams fighting it out for the playoffs would have scripted results when they played a bottom 5 team throwing games.

Nice sport that would turn into.  Maybe WWE is more up your alley?

 

 

No, it is using hindsight, the results would have been the same with only the team name changed.

Draft rules will change in this CBA too many big US markets will need to improve quickly to have them miss too often.

 

And remember Bettman testified under oath that the NHL was an entertainment business, all the teams were a single entity and that there was no competition between teams. Look it up, the Glendale stuff, it is all public. Those even showed that the Yotes were well below the cap minimum without penalty, again this available for everyone to see.

[spook007]

10 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Market Researcher: 'The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes. The average ********* fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.'
*********: 'How can that be?'
Market Researcher: 'Answer most commonly given? "I want to see what he'll say next."'
*********: 'Okay, fine. But what about the people who hate *******?'
Market Researcher: 'Good point. The average ********* hater listens for two and a half hours a day.'
********: 'But if they hate him, why do they listen?'
Market Researcher: 'Most common answer? "I want to see what he'll say next."'

 

Hmmmm…..works for social media as well. Anyone can be Vanilla.

But I am not even being that negative really, apart from my thought that this team has made many errors and missed many opportunities I don't really rag on the players, they are doing the best they can, I will use a particular player as an example of something such as using up a roster spot for a prospect, but I don't name a prospect or size, the size issue mostly because I watched a small player attempting and failing to get the puck away from a much larger one many times. I even state it isn't just one small player, it is the number of them. Larger players have much better odds of winning board battles or screening in front of the net, smaller players will almost have to walk the line for penalties to win a battle, crosscheck flagrantly, holding, "can opener" or being getting pushed/knocked down. A small team will rely on the "rush" and PP for scoring. In the playoffs how many "Wilson" hits will Stecher take or Hughes when checks are getting finished?

The first part sounds like Howard Stern... 

The hockey part I don’t disagree on. 

Ive been advocating size as well, but I do believe we are getting bigger as well. 

Lind, Gadjovic, Virtanen, Gaunce, Gaudette, Beagle, Bo, Brock, Roussell, Schaller, Edler, Guddy, woo, Archibald, Tryamkin, Juolevi, Gunnersson,,Hutton suggests to me, that size is slowly being addressed. You can add Palmu to that although being small he’s built like a tank. 

Unless you pick 1st you have to weigh up the options, and Pettersson and Hughes are the slight players, but there has to be room for players of this quality. Of course not all the above listed will make it, but once we become relevant again, the extra size can be add via trades or free agency. 

Hughes was not my favorite pick, but I totally understand the reasoning. 

And I totally trusts Bennings ability to pick the right players. 

So Contrary to you, I have total confidence in Benning. 

[70seven]

Difference is draft lottery, and Virtanen over Nylander...  Otherwise I’d say Canucks are on a similar trajectory, but weren’t able to have their prospects translate into the NHL as fast. 

 

Leafs had higher picks before Vancouver bottomed out like Kadri, Reilly, and Marner as well.

 

Vancouver isn’t too much further behind imo. Once the skill blooms, strong UFAs will be drawn back here too. 

[teepain]

It was Lou who got Andersson for a goalie?

he did the same thing with NYI , picking up Lehner . 

Def need goaltending to be solid to move forward.

good thing we groomed out own guy in Demko