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

Is the Current Ownership Failing this Team?


Dungass

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Sorry, the largely media driven, elementary analytics noise doesn't actually equate to a 'bad player' in reality.

but... there's numbers. And charts with blue and red spots on them.

 

I've been reading a lot of so-called analytics articles over the last couple of years and wish now that I had that time back. Most of what I've seen is useless, biased or both. I have no doubt there are some useful internal tracking numbers but beyond that there's nothing I've seen that justifies the outrage people have had over players like Guddy. Its like they read the chart but forgot to watch the actual games. 

 

I like the composition of the team going forward. Sure it may fall flat, but it may also work to design and it might be a heck of a lot of fun to watch. Regardless ownership and Benning have provided us with something we've never really had, a youth movement to be excited about. 

 

I'm far more disappointed in the dead zone arena atmosphere. Thats where ownership can really step things up and make the event a lot more fun to attend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Watchincanucks said:

Ok give me a break I have been watching Goldobin play. I like him, I don’t want to lose him on waivers. I saw Leipsic play and I don’t want to lose him. I could not care less about Granlund or Gagner or Eriksson, Gaunce Archibald Kero Motte Boucher, they will not contribute to this team by the time we are good imo. So the question is, is Benning going to trade one of Greens pet vets (first 3) or do we end up waiving them (Goldobin Leipsic) to make room for Pettersson Gaudette Dahlen Palmu or any rookie that earns it. Maybe Benning will surprise me, but he has been saying he will make room but has never actually made a trade to do it. Juolevi could also earn a spot but again would he actually trade Del Zotto or anyone else to make room. I’ll believe it when I see it, but history shows we will wait for injury or poor play before he does anything. I don’t want to waste 10-20 games first. Part of a GMs job is to know who is or is not ready. If he thinks 3 are ready you clear 2 spots and trade 1 if all 3 make team. If they aren’t ready you plug in Archibald Motte or Gaunce or however does earn it. What you don’t do is jam up the 4th line, that good teams use to develop young players, for next 4 years in a win now/mentor ship role on a rebuilding team.

soooo, you have a list of players and you know more than Green so if he doesn't make same selections as you he is a bad coach.

 

Got the just of your thoughts on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

http://theconversation.com/dont-feed-the-trolls-really-is-good-advice-heres-the-evidence-63657

 

Schaller likely has the biggest likelihood of being outplayed. And if he is, don't think for a second they won't waive or trade him. His contract is hardly an impediment to that. That said, he's an upgrade on the likes of Gaunce etc and I'd imagine he's on the roster (being that he's a better player, which is kind of the point, no? You want better players on the team, right?).

 

Why couldn't someone outplay Beagle/Roussel? Well in theory 'anything' is possible but we have literally no one else to play those roles, and they're both arguably elite examples with proven NHL track record in their given roles (elite face off winning/pk'ing/hard minute and usage 4C and elite 3rd line pest/2 way winger with tertiary scoring). Gagner on the other hand we can easily replace with some of our skilled W'ers  now that they're actually approaching being NHL ready and MDZ is going to likely get moved towards the TDL and replaced with Juolevi. The latter are warm bodies until replacements are ready. The former are actual 'needs' or would otherwise be holes in the lineup without them. We don't have replacement prospects at all or if we do, not close to being ready.

 

Some of those things (contracts, trades, waiver eligibility etc) will certainly factor in to any decision making but it's nowhere near as black and white as you're making it. Does that mean maybe a player gets traded a month in to the season instead of after camp or a prospect waits for an injury? Maybe. I'm not sure what the rush is?

 

And no, there is no issue. Healthy competition is not only good but vital to a healthy and improving franchise. Only the strong will survive (even if it's not as fast of a process as you may prefer). That our trash media has somehow managed to spin it as a negative goes far beyond :picard:

 

Eriksson, despite his abhorrent lack of offensive production, particularly for the $ thus far, is still a pretty damn good 2 way player even when he's not producing up to his contract. That's not as easily outplayed as you seem to assume. And who knows, maybe playing with some of the kids, he rekindles some of that offense *fingers crossed*. A bad contract does not equal a bad player.

 

Gudbranson had the lowest goals against per 60 on our D last year despite playing largely harder minutes (dzone/PK) and playing injured (again!). If he can manage to stay remotely healthier, we get an even better player than that. Sorry, the largely media driven, elementary analytics noise doesn't actually equate to a 'bad player' in reality. Add that we're not exactly over flowing with right D depth (or toughness) and he's not going anywhere.

 

Gaunce is likely waived and in Utica short of him outplaying some of the other guys at/near the bottom of the totem pole. Competition.

You have a lot of good points.  The real issue I have is Term on contracts.  the $ the canucks can afford to blow right now.  

 

And Term is a financial consideration - and that is cause for concern.  I just see the management's strengths more in drafting players as opposed to bringing in FAs - which hasn't been that successful.  drafting is looking like a strength.

 

Anyways, not to beat a dead horse.  I see a pattern in the contracts being signed that I find problematic.  We'll see how it plays out over the next few years.  Its not that hard to predict that these contracts with term make the managements decisions for them in advance, so its not about competence its about being squeezed by your own past decisions.  but the team needs to try to win now, so I don't blame them for trying.  Hope it works out the coming year!  If not there is always the draft to be happy about.  The real test will come when we have to take haircuts on some of these bad contracts - and what that forces us to do, if anything.  will be interesting to see

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Watchincanucks said:

I can tell you how it unfolds, we plug in a bunch of vets, cause that’s what green wants, and we waste 10,20,30 games watching boring hockey.

Cool story.

 

13 hours ago, Watchincanucks said:

Why whine or worry about it now?

If Goldobin or Leipsic go on to score 20-30 goals with another team will it still be ok we waived them? Is that really unrealistic to think they could? I’ll tell you Beagle scoring 20-30 goals is unrealistic. 

Utter nonsense.  But make sure you get that premature whining in - in case things don't unfold as you 'predict'.

 

Goldobin and Leipsic are wingers.

Beagle is an (absolutely essential) hard minutes matchup center.

 

You clearly don't understand the fact that there is absolutely no chance that Beagle plays a role that would otherwise go to these players you've named.

 

Let me tell you how it unfolds if we do what you're implying 'should' be done.

Horribly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, canucksnihilist said:

You have a lot of good points.  The real issue I have is Term on contracts.  the $ the canucks can afford to blow right now.  

 

And Term is a financial consideration - and that is cause for concern.  I just see the management's strengths more in drafting players as opposed to bringing in FAs - which hasn't been that successful.  drafting is looking like a strength.

 

Anyways, not to beat a dead horse.  I see a pattern in the contracts being signed that I find problematic.  We'll see how it plays out over the next few years.  Its not that hard to predict that these contracts with term make the managements decisions for them in advance, so its not about competence its about being squeezed by your own past decisions.  but the team needs to try to win now, so I don't blame them for trying.  Hope it works out the coming year!  If not there is always the draft to be happy about.  The real test will come when we have to take haircuts on some of these bad contracts - and what that forces us to do, if anything.  will be interesting to see

 

 

 

 

Try not clouding the situation with your 'feelings' on contracts.

 

The only FA that's been remotely a 'problem' is Eriksson. And even he's really not a problem as much as just being poor value (thus far anayway).

 

What you seem to call a pattern, I call situational and quite carefully planned. If you'd actually look at how expiring contracts are structured over the next 3-4 years, (as numerous people have recommended you do), you'd see a pretty clear plan in place to have those veteran contracts expire and/or traded all within that time frame. Coincidentally, that's the exact time frame the vast majority of our next core's ELC's are set to expire. That's not by accident.

 

It's also largely a misread of the situation as 'win now' moves.  No team ever has been completely full of kids.

 

The roster will always be about competence. If not as immediately as you'd perhaps like, in the quite short term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

soooo, you have a list of players and you know more than Green so if he doesn't make same selections as you he is a bad coach.

 

Got the just of your thoughts on this?

So you would prefer to fill the lineup with character vets and mentor ship program, with players that will not be around with the Canucks in 3 years, when we will be good enough to make playoffs. Players that could make an impact, are an ok casualty of building the right way according to you. If Goldobin is waived and scores 30 goals, like Grabner did after being traded by Canucks to Florida, that’s ok that’s the cost of your mentor ship program? I call it a failure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Cool story.

 

Utter nonsense.  But make sure you get that premature whining in - in case things don't unfold as you 'predict'.

 

Goldobin and Leipsic are wingers.

Beagle is an (absolutely essential) hard minutes matchup center.

 

You clearly don't understand the fact that there is absolutely no chance that Beagle plays a role that would otherwise go to these players you've named.

 

Let me tell you how it unfolds if we do what you're implying 'should' be done.

Horribly.

f223b1be-2e69-439c-b411-b277c670694b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, canucksnihilist said:

Impossible to earn a spot from Erikkson.  Gaunce.  Gudbranson.    Those players are gifted spots no matter how poorly they play.   Why not mention them when we are talking about who should be waived?

 

because it’s not about making the team.  It’s always about $

This is nonsense wadr.

First of all, there is absolutely no way a player like Gaunce is "gifted" a spot.  He'll have to continue to earn him minutes.

 

Second, you don't appear to have a realistic perspective where "performance" is concerned.   Gudbranson and Gaunce have earned every minute they've played thus far - what you're implying may be echoed by canucksmarmy types, but these are far better players than you seem to realize. 

 

Not going to go into great length about Gaunce's (or Gubranson's) objective outcomes, but in a nutshell, Gaunce had among the lowest offensive zone starts in the NHL (14.9%) and a corsi of 46%.  You'd think the pseudo-analyticz gaggle in Vancouver would have figured out by now how impressive those underyling numbers actually are. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing you guys say will change the fact that win now moves do not help rebuilding teams, if they are at the expense of losing good promising young players that could be impact players. Enjoy watching Beagle win face offs. I would prefer to watch entertaining hockey, Goldobin dangling and scoring goals. I know I watch games to see who wins more faceoffs. I’m sure it will fill the rink watching Jay Beagle shut down the other team. If Goldobin needs to work on defence work with him, it’s what Green was brought in for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Watchincanucks said:

So you would prefer to fill the lineup with character vets and mentor ship program, with players that will not be around with the Canucks in 3 years, when we will be good enough to make playoffs. Players that could make an impact, are an ok casualty of building the right way according to you. If Goldobin is waived and scores 30 goals, like Grabner did after being traded by Canucks to Florida, that’s ok that’s the cost of your mentor ship program? I call it a failure!

Where did I say that?   You seem to continually read things that are not written.   I am 100% behind younger talent emerging into the NHL but it needs to earned.   Further, if players are not taking responsibility for doing as coaches ask, move on to another prospect.    

 

You cite ONE player that Vancouver traded away one time.    Wow.   Great database.   

 

IF Goldy is not able to beat out "plugs" as you call them, who cares what he does down the line.   You cannot keep people in the NHL lineup that don't earn the position.  Not sure what you struggle to understand about that.   I WANT Goldy to make it but giving the guy a roster spot if he doesn't earn it is simply stupid no matter what his potential.   He has to demonstrate a commitment to improvement and an ability to listen to what the coaches are asking him to do.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Watchincanucks said:

Nothing you guys say will change the fact that win now moves do not help rebuilding teams, if they are at the expense of losing good promising young players that could be impact players. Enjoy watching Beagle win face offs. I would prefer to watch entertaining hockey, Goldobin dangling and scoring goals. I know I watch games to see who wins more faceoffs. I’m sure it will fill the rink watching Jay Beagle shut down the other team. If Goldobin needs to work on defence work with him, it’s what Green was brought in for.

You really don't want to "get it" do you?   This has NOTHING to do with points in the standings and everything to do with building a competitive culture and making sure that EVERY young player who makes it to the NHL with the Canucks earns it in such a way that when the Canucks are relevant again in the standings that these players know how to play the right way.   One of the reasons other teams are perpetually rebuilding is they did nothing in the way of creating an accountable, competitive environment and they gifted younger players with lots of potential spots that were not earned - many of those young players crashed/burned and never got close to their potential and those teams remain perpetual lottery candidates as a result.

 

Vancouver did a great job this summer in signing not a single player targeted for the top 6 and perhaps not even top 9 - in other words all the positions that the youth will be competing with as none of the elite prospects/young talent are 4th line candidates nor should they be.   Other thing with the signings was the leadership, work ethic and winning culture they bring - one of them coming off the Cup, for example, and often noted by peers as the "hardest working player in entire NHL".    

 

Again, please feel free to continue not "getting it".   :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Watchincanucks said:

Nothing you guys say will change the fact that win now moves do not help rebuilding teams, if they are at the expense of losing good promising young players that could be impact players. Enjoy watching Beagle win face offs. I would prefer to watch entertaining hockey, Goldobin dangling and scoring goals. I know I watch games to see who wins more faceoffs. I’m sure it will fill the rink watching Jay Beagle shut down the other team. If Goldobin needs to work on defence work with him, it’s what Green was brought in for.

Nothing you say will change the fact that you're just not getting it.

 

How are the Canucks losing good promising players? By not playing them in the bottom six forward slots?

Do you realize that hockey games aren't won solely by dangling and scoring, right? Right?

 

Certainly Goldobin has tons of skill, but he needs to bring it along with consistency. You realize that he's struggled with that, right? Or is dangling worth the price of admission?

 

Beagle, Roussel, and Schaller weren't brought in by Benning to magically help with the playoff run planned by ownership and management. They were brought in to provide leadership (Beagle was widely regarding in Washington, and just won a Cup) and protection along with Gudbranson. The younger players won't really fare all that well if they spend half a game in the quiet room or getting bandaged up. This team has been notoriously easy to play against for many years. For that to continue into the next core would be a horrible idea, and clearly Benning and Green want this team to not only stand up for each other, but to make the opposing team pay at every possible opportunity.

 

These moves aren't win now moves. They are moves that will pay dividends for seasons to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Nothing you say will change the fact that you're just not getting it.

 

How are the Canucks losing good promising players? By not playing them in the bottom six forward slots?

Do you realize that hockey games aren't won solely by dangling and scoring, right? Right?

 

Certainly Goldobin has tons of skill, but he needs to bring it along with consistency. You realize that he's struggled with that, right? Or is dangling worth the price of admission?

 

Beagle, Roussel, and Schaller weren't brought in by Benning to magically help with the playoff run planned by ownership and management. They were brought in to provide leadership (Beagle was widely regarding in Washington, and just won a Cup) and protection along with Gudbranson. The younger players won't really fare all that well if they spend half a game in the quiet room or getting bandaged up. This team has been notoriously easy to play against for many years. For that to continue into the next core would be a horrible idea, and clearly Benning and Green want this team to not only stand up for each other, but to make the opposing team pay at every possible opportunity.

 

These moves aren't win now moves. They are moves that will pay dividends for seasons to come.

Then trade the vets that don’t protect the young players. People say we are not gonna lose young players. That Benning will make trades, do it now! Not after they don’t make the team. If you want any return you don’t wait till you have no leverage. If Benning can’t project who can make the team he is not as good as other GMs they seem to do it year after year without needing to make several moves after preseason. You show me your line up for next year and I’ll show you who we lose or need to trade. If Pettersson makes the team, and everyone thinks he will we lose a player on waivers or need to make a trade. If Jim Benning does not know what to expect from Gagner or Eriksson or Granlund, if he is expecting them to come in and improve their games, he does not have a clue. They are what they are. Petterssons competition can come from other young players Dahlen Gaudette etc. Not these vets that will make team no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Watchincanucks said:

Then trade the vets that don’t protect the young players.

What's the date today? The beginning of the season is over two months away. Veterans like Gagner and Del Zotto could very well be playing for a different team come October. Some veterans like Edler and Tanev aren't going to necessarily "stand up" for the younger players, but they are talented enough players who can impart a lot of knowledge to the youth, as does their tutelage when they are paired with a younger player

6 minutes ago, Watchincanucks said:

People say we are not gonna lose young players. That Benning will make trades, do it now!

Just for $&!#s and giggles? A trade has to be beneficial for what's coming back, not just to get rid of a player.

6 minutes ago, Watchincanucks said:

Not after they don’t make the team. If you want any return you don’t wait till you have no leverage. If Benning can’t project who can make the team he is not as good as other GMs they seem to do it year after year without needing to make several moves after preseason.

That's what training camp is for. To see the players together. To see how rookies play against seasoned veterans. Every GM does that, and Benning is no different.

 

6 minutes ago, Watchincanucks said:

You show me your line up for next year and I’ll show you who we lose or need to trade.

I don't have a line-up for this season because training camp hasn't happened yet. I have no interest in rosterbation at this point in time.

6 minutes ago, Watchincanucks said:

If Pettersson makes the team, and everyone thinks he will we lose a player on waivers or need to make a trade.

Petterson is most likely on the opening night roster based on comments made by management. He still has to come to camp and impress though. Just like everyone else.

6 minutes ago, Watchincanucks said:

If Jim Benning does not know what to expect from Gagner or Eriksson or Granlund, if he is expecting them to come in and improve their games, he does not have a clue.

Benning has a chart in his office with every player in the league, so I'm pretty sure he knows what to expect out of each player. I think your line of reasoning is inherently faulty though.

 

How are you so sure that none of the three aforementioned players will come into camp improved? I mean, I'm pretty sure Gagner is what he is and most likely won't show any marked improvement. Granlund is on a show me deal and will need to definitely need to show improvement to stick on the team. Eriksson will also need to show up and provide some offense this year and not go on extended goal droughts anymore, or I can see Benning approaching him regarding a trade.

6 minutes ago, Watchincanucks said:

They are what they are. Petterssons competition can come from other young players Dahlen Gaudette etc. Not these vets that will make team no matter what.

Some of these veterans will be traded. There is just too much young talent coming into the ranks to stubbornly keep underperforming veterans in the line-up anymore. The Sedins are gone. The landscape is changing and this team's roster could be quite different in March then it is in October.

 

Patience.

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...