higgyfan Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said: Well one thing for Gillis his only NMC's were for future hall of famers. To which he inherited from Burkie/Nonis. It was a no brainer at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuardian_ Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 11 minutes ago, higgyfan said: To which he inherited from Burkie/Nonis. It was a no brainer at that point. resigned November 2013 for 4 years Kind of pointless conversations but there isn't really much else. SJ got much stronger, Calgary is looking better, Edmonton will not be as bad as last year, who knows with Anahiem or LA, Vegas is stronger maybe, Colorado was better after the trade, the Nucks are both stronger and weaker, Arizona was better than the Canucks at the end of the year, so if they even realistically hope for a playoff spot it is within the conference and a wild card spot. They will still need to get at least 22 more points than last year, a tall order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said: resigned November 2013 for 4 years Kind of pointless conversations but there isn't really much else. SJ got much stronger, Calgary is looking better, Edmonton will not be as bad as last year, who knows with Anahiem or LA, Vegas is stronger maybe, Colorado was better after the trade, the Nucks are both stronger and weaker, Arizona was better than the Canucks at the end of the year, so if they even realistically hope for a playoff spot it is within the conference and a wild card spot. They will still need to get at least 22 more points than last year, a tall order. Yeah, I'm not thinking they'll make the playoffs this year and not bothered by it either. I'm enjoying the developing youth movement and the team's decent depth. I'm more in line with keeping the kids in Utica this year and allowing for further development and chemistry and bonding. As we all know, the Nucks will face +++ injuries, so the yougin's will get their opportunities. Got my eyes set on the upcoming draft in Vancouver, that's for sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kootenay Gold Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 7 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said: SJ got much stronger, Calgary is looking better, Edmonton will not be as bad as last year, who knows with Anahiem or LA, Vegas is stronger maybe, Colorado was better after the trade, the Nucks are both stronger and weaker, Arizona was better than the Canucks at the end of the year, so if they even realistically hope for a playoff spot it is within the conference and a wild card spot. They will still need to get at least 22 more points than last year, a tall order. I agree for the most part on this but as we know from last year, anything can happen. Look no further than Las Vegas... who could have predicted that? As for myself,; I thought that Calgary and Edmonton would do better than they did last year. Calgary, IMO, looked on paper at the start of last season to be right in the mix with the Cali. teams but under performed. Edmonton was not as much a surprise as they have been under performing for a number of years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted September 18, 2018 Author Share Posted September 18, 2018 1 hour ago, oldnews said: The way you game-plan this is to the 'transition' / long game approach imo. What you get with short-term tankjobs is a cluster of key/core assets that co-exist / overlap on a 'timeline' but create the cap crunch situations you refer to. The odd one may be fortunate or well-built enough to coincide that timeline with a viable and deep enough supporting cast that translates into an actual contender. For example, Chicago was anything but a mere 'core' of Toews, Kane and Keith - they had a ridiculously deep team from top to bottom - as any true contender must. They did a great job getting there- and early on they did a good job of retooling, but they didn't do such a great job sustaining or retooling over the longer term - and have made handfuls of costly deals since. On the other hand, perpetual tankjobs like the Coil don't necessarily accomplish anything - because they've rarely built beyond their lottery assets, drafted poorly, haven't converted assets very well or developed them..... If the Canucks want to avoid these kind of time crunch circumstances, they have to do what they've been relatively adept at in the current management group - which is, whether or not they have a high pick in any given draft, they need to maintain a continuum of viable assets via the baseline of the draft. Benning's first draft: 1) Virtanen 2) Demko 3) Tryamkin 4) Gudbranson/McCann 5) Forsling/Clendenning/part of the Sutter deal Second draft: 1) Boeser 2) Gaudette 3) Jasek ?4) Brisebois? Third draft: 1) Juolevi ?2) Lockwood? Fourth draft 1) Pettersson 2) Lind 3) Gadjovich 4) Dipietro. Fifth draft - no + years to assess. Now - no one can expect these results every year - there will be drafts like 2016 where they may only get one real viable prospect (possibly two) - however, in the extended frame / larger sample - this trend needs to have some continuity. Conversely - from 2007, to 2008, to 2009, to 2010, to 2011....the team extracted virtually nothing from the draft in the end. One Patrick White was converted into Ehrhoff, one Hodgson into Kassian - but absolutely nothing sustainable about that drafting and developing record. On the other hand, sustaining can be achievable whether or not a team is gifted with lottery picks. Teams like Anaheim for example have managed to draft future core assets in the midst of contending. Getzlaf, Perry = picks made while Anaheim was a contender. Of course, that is an outlier, but it's an example of what's possible, and on some level, necessary to make a team competitive on a longer term basis. No better example of that than the decades long run that the Detroit Red Wings managed - and needless to say, easier shopping listed than it is done - and ironically, a goal set by Mike Gillis - that was anything but achieved in the longer run, as the team wound up on a crash trajectory without a prospect pool to bridge from contention into the future. So, what Benning inherited was a team on the cusp of an inevitable decline and transition. But the short game imo is absolutely the wrong approach - and the impatience of people with pipe dreams about that short game providing lottery picks and delivering inevitable championships is...a short-sighted fairy tale (with obvious examples - as all the 'superstars' in Deadmonton have amounted to nothing through a decade - it still could, but will still depend on a top to bottom build.) It's also in part what I don't like about the Leaf approach - which overlapped dead cap/bad contracts with a perceived window of contention, spent picks on rentals in that same period, wound up losing multiple assets to free agency, spent like teenagers on allowance day on consecutive July 1sts, have painted themselves into somewhat of a corner around players like Nylander (and possibly Marner next), and whether or not they've built a pipeline from within to contend is debatable, particularly when you look at that blueline. In the end, it's the long game and the ability to sustain the long game that actually creates sufficient enough windows that there's a hope to capitalize on at some point. It takes more than a core - and it even takes more than a build - it also takes health, and some luck/good fortune. Banking on a short term window isn't really the best approach imo - I think it's a 'better' gameplan to go in with a long-game, protracted transition and put your key cards in a continuum of development that enables you to replace assets from within once you reach a critical mass of contracts that you simply cannot retain. Thanks for that great response. Some ideas I would like to add are that I believe it is important to hang on to all of our picks no matter how well or bad the team is doing and also drafting players who are "Cup Hungry". They would be able to see when the team is ready to be revamped and so they would be willing to move to a contender thereby giving the team the added ability to acquire more picks then they would normally get. If players are still needed, then the UFA route would be the way to go and would not cost us any picks at all. This would be a much more viable approach then to gut the team every few years and then "Tank" and pray to win the lottery. This, I believe, would keep the team competitive for years to come as Detroit did and how Anaheim has been able to sustain lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 40 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said: Well one thing for Gillis his only NMC's were for future hall of famers. Eriksson wanted the NMC to protect himself from the expansion draft. He no longer has the NMC. It was two years NMC, two years NTC, and 2 years LTC. Oh the horror.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted September 18, 2018 Author Share Posted September 18, 2018 18 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said: resigned November 2013 for 4 years Kind of pointless conversations but there isn't really much else. SJ got much stronger, Calgary is looking better, Edmonton will not be as bad as last year, who knows with Anahiem or LA, Vegas is stronger maybe, Colorado was better after the trade, the Nucks are both stronger and weaker, Arizona was better than the Canucks at the end of the year, so if they even realistically hope for a playoff spot it is within the conference and a wild card spot. They will still need to get at least 22 more points than last year, a tall order. The way I see it, all those teams are beatable by us, especially when we are healthy. Vegas was tough last year but I am not sure they can improve over last year. The teams are so close is parity that it is hard to predict where we will fall. I suspect we will finish pretty high if we stay healthy and not so much if we don't. All of the other teams have to contend with things such as injuries too and so the variables are too big to accurately predict either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 1 hour ago, TheGuardian_ said: Luongo will go the same way as Zettenberg, hockey injuries piling up resutting in retirement. Holland stated this was the plan way back when he signed the deal(s). Wasn't his numbers like 4th or 5th best in the league last year? The one? Eriksson's was the 4th clause contract he handed out, more than Gillis did and much more expensive for even older players. His contracts handcuffed the team from the TDL and trade market. I hope he doesn't give Boeser a super long term deal, not yet. 140 games is not enough at this time to judge a career. Ha ha. What impact other than LE have those clause contracts had? Not at all as the same as MG. Horvat didn’t get one and I bet neither will Boeser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuardian_ Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 4 minutes ago, Baggins said: Eriksson wanted the NMC to protect himself from the expansion draft. He no longer has the NMC. It was two years NMC, two years NTC, and 2 years LTC. Oh the horror.... Still he can veto half the league and then there is those huge signing bonuses and his age and performance. So a bad deal gets a lot worse if the team expects him to be a top scorer and hard to trade a 6 million dollar defensive guy. If dealt, will it/could it/if at all, be a Vanek type deal, for a contract and an veteran AHLer with retention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuardian_ Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, IBatch said: Ha ha. What impact other than LE have those clause contracts had? Not at all as the same as MG. Horvat didn’t get one and I bet neither will Boeser. Errr, the team has been the 2nd worst team in the entire league over the last three years. So I guess they contributed to the standings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 Just now, TheGuardian_ said: Still he can veto half the league and then there is those huge signing bonuses and his age and performance. So a bad deal gets a lot worse if the team expects him to be a top scorer and hard to trade a 6 million dollar defensive guy. If dealt, will it/could it/if at all, be a Vanek type deal, for a contract and an veteran AHLer with retention? So could every player Gillis handed an ntc to. Hamhuis gave us Dallas to deal with. Kesler gave us Anaheim. Garrison wanted a Florida team. Half the league sounds pretty good in comparison. We've seen several times a player with a high cap hit and lower salary getting moved. There's always teams more concerned about salary than cap hit. That's the position Ericksson will be in his last two years. I'm not concerned about Eriksson's contract at all. He'll be gone by the time we actually need to worry about truly high cap hit players here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 25 minutes ago, EdgarM said: Thanks for that great response. Some ideas I would like to add are that I believe it is important to hang on to all of our picks no matter how well or bad the team is doing and also drafting players who are "Cup Hungry". They would be able to see when the team is ready to be revamped and so they would be willing to move to a contender thereby giving the team the added ability to acquire more picks then they would normally get. If players are still needed, then the UFA route would be the way to go and would not cost us any picks at all. This would be a much more viable approach then to gut the team every few years and then "Tank" and pray to win the lottery. This, I believe, would keep the team competitive for years to come as Detroit did and how Anaheim has been able to sustain lately. This is truly pie in the sky thinking. Players aren't loyal to franchises, they are loyal to money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said: Errr, the team has been the 2nd worst team in the entire league over the last three years. So I guess they contributed to the standings? Who cares? Would we actually have been better without him, playing Megna instead? Hey Aqua could have saved six mill and sucked anyway. So who cares? Seems you're just grasping at straws to complain for the sake of complaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuardian_ Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 4 minutes ago, Baggins said: So could every player Gillis handed an ntc to. Hamhuis gave us Dallas to deal with. Kesler gave us Anaheim. Garrison wanted a Florida team. Half the league sounds pretty good in comparison. We've seen several times a player with a high cap hit and lower salary getting moved. There's always teams more concerned about salary than cap hit. That's the position Ericksson will be in his last two years. I'm not concerned about Eriksson's contract at all. He'll be gone by the time we actually need to worry about truly high cap hit players here. Hamhuis was Chicago and Dallas, Kesler's agent shopped, Garrison got a 2nd round pick, that's better than Miller and Vrbata. Done is done, the last 4 years were a waste, the rebuild is starting, as the prospects get graded, either in or out, the pool rating will go down. Boeser, IMO, should get the same types of contracts as Horvat, a bridge deal and then a term deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said: Hamhuis was Chicago and Dallas, Kesler's agent shopped, Garrison got a 2nd round pick, that's better than Miller and Vrbata. Done is done, the last 4 years were a waste, the rebuild is starting, as the prospects get graded, either in or out, the pool rating will go down. Boeser, IMO, should get the same types of contracts as Horvat, a bridge deal and then a term deal. Miller gave the Cali teams. No takers. Vrbata, in case you never heard (as impossible as that seems), admitted publicly he gave a list he knew wouldn't be interested because he didn't want to move. Kesler gave Benning one team - Anaheim. Thankfully they actually wanted him. Chicago had no interest in Hamhuis leaving only Dallas. Washington made an offer but Hammer refused to go there. Dallas got their first choice from Calgary and offered scraps for Hammer. But you know, and continue to ignore, all this. The last four years were rebuilding. We went from no prospect pool to one of the top prospect pools in the league. Did you think it would be pretty? Every team with a top prospect pool has their ranking go down as those prospect move up. Kind of the way it works. Winnipeg had one of the top prospect pools a few years back. How did it look in Penticton? I wonder why Edmonton and Calgary didn't want to come.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuardian_ Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, Baggins said: Miller gave the Cali teams. No takers. Vrbata, in case you never heard (as impossible as that seems), admitted publicly he gave a list he knew wouldn't be interested because he didn't want to move. Kesler gave Benning one team - Anaheim. Thankfully they actually wanted him. Chicago had no interest in Hamhuis leaving only Dallas. Washington made an offer but Hammer refused to go there. Dallas got their first choice from Calgary and offered scraps for Hammer. But you know, and continue to ignore, all this. The last four years were rebuilding. We went from no prospect pool to one of the top prospect pools in the league. Did you think it would be pretty? Every team with a top prospect pool has their ranking go down as those prospect move up. Kind of the way it works. Winnipeg had one of the top prospect pools a few years back. How did it look in Penticton? I wonder why Edmonton and Calgary didn't want to come.... 4 years rebuilding, do really believe that? If so then this will be an epic Edmonton rebuild, there are only two of his draft picks playing and one of Gillis's. NJ and NYR started last year and this year. How long do you think a rebuild should take? 7 years, 10? The prospect pool doesn't win games and with the 35 possible draft picks in the system and not on the team the pool should be good, TO is a playoff contender in 4 years. Sure they got lucky with Mathews but the Sedins outscored him combined or even Horvat was only a handful of points behind. If TO kept Marner, Nylander, Mathews or Reilly in the minors they would have a much better prospect pool. A good prospect pool equals a bad NHL team and a good NHL team equals a poor prospect pool. They are rebuilding but going into year one, the CBA will breakup the rebuild and may help. LA and Anaheim should decline enough that the Nucks pass them shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogersTowell Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 1 hour ago, TheGuardian_ said: Hamhuis was Chicago and Dallas, Kesler's agent shopped, Garrison got a 2nd round pick, that's better than Miller and Vrbata. Done is done, the last 4 years were a waste, the rebuild is starting, as the prospects get graded, either in or out, the pool rating will go down. Boeser, IMO, should get the same types of contracts as Horvat, a bridge deal and then a term deal. The last 4 years were by no means a waste. Most of the young talent we have on this team has been assembled in the last four years. Are you saying we are in a bad situation by having Virtanen, Demko, Tryamkin (his rights at least), Boeser, Brisebois, Gaudette, Jasek, Juolevi, Lockwood, Pettersson, Lind, Gadjovich, DiPIetro, Palmu, Brassard, Hughes and more in our roster and as prospects? You don't get a prospect pool like this without having the picks that poor finishes have resulted in. Benning has turned those picks into a pretty decent group to turn things around with. While our pool of prospects is bound to decline over time, especially as some of the top players like Pettersson graduate to the NHL, our NHL team will inevitably get better. Benning has a strong drafting track record and should be able to continue to get some good players with later first round picks and later rounds. Sure, LE's contract was too big and the movement clauses aren't very helpful, but that's what it took to get a highly sought after FA at that time. On it's own, his contract will by no means limit what management can do with our young players.While Garrison got better than what we got for Miller or Vrbata, Benning did get Dahlen for Burrows, which I'd argue was a better result than any of your examples. Again, Benning shopped players around and got what he could for them. We could even have tried to sign Vrbata after the season was over, but obviously chose to go in a different direction, and I think rightly so. Take home message? Cheer up. Things are going to be improving. It could easily be this season. Not too long now and we'll be seeing deep playoff runs. This is not Buffalo or Edmonton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xereau Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 On 17/09/2018 at 12:32 PM, EmilyM said: We definitely can... ...until Luongo retires early. There is still the lockout that will knock a year off of this conundrum, and, there is always the LTIR loophole. I think we will be fine. Last resort is that they take the NHL to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmilyM Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, xereau said: There is still the lockout that will knock a year off of this conundrum, and, there is always the LTIR loophole. I think we will be fine. Last resort is that they take the NHL to court. Yeah, it's absolutely ridiculous that we can be penalized for something that was done according to what was within league rules at the time. It's more comical than anything for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 3 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said: Errr, the team has been the 2nd worst team in the entire league over the last three years. So I guess they contributed to the standings? Say what? Of course they f$&Keslered the rebuild (wow that was autocorrect and how right it was!) the last core gave us Sutter and Horvat to work with, a lot less that the previous one that got us Bertuzzi, Naslund (ok Stajanov was never going to be a core player but at the time some thought he might be), the Sedins and then Luongo. That’s how a rebuild is supposed to work, flipping your vets, Benning had nothing to work with given the clauses, yet somehow had managed to make it work nonetheless, not much to complain about right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.