what did we gain by not re-signing any of Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli?

[IBatch]

6 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

The division "argument" is asinine. Our division has 1 great team and 3~ other good teams. If you look around the league, the other divisions are even more top heavy and have similar depth.

 

If we were in the Pacific division this year, we still wouldn't have made the playoffs: VGK, EDM, ARI, SJS are all better and LAK & CGY are about on par.

 

And every team in the league had to deal with this season's abnormality, not just us.

Not really.   LA, ARI, ANA, SJ ... not exactly tough competition.   Or do you think they are?   Add CAL to that ... and well i won't even bother discussing this with you if you think that's asinine. 

Edited April 5, 2021 by IBatch

[kanucks25]

2 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Not really.   LA, ARI, ANA, SJ ... not exactly tough competition.   Or do you think they are?   Add CAL to that ... and well i won't even bother discussing this with you if you think that's asinine. 

Look at the standings, the 4 teams I mentioned are better than us right now.

 

LAK is almost equal, like 1% points below us.

 

You can omit Calgary if you want, doesn't really change much.

[IBatch]

3 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Look at the standings, the 4 teams I mentioned are better than us right now.

 

LAK is almost equal, like 1% points below us.

 

You can omit Calgary if you want, doesn't really change much.

yeah i figured you'd think the standings in their division matter.   They don't.   Pay attention.   MIN is a team we can beat, as is St. Louis.   It's by far the weakest division right now, as long as Seattle = ARI next year, we are in gravy.   SJ, LA and ANA all are going to suffer for awhile.   

Edited April 5, 2021 by IBatch

[kanucks25]

5 minutes ago, IBatch said:

yeah i figured you'd think the standings in their division matter.   They don't.   Pay attention.   MIN is a team we can beat, as is St. Louis.   It's by far the weakest division right now, as long as Seattle = ARI next year, we are in gravy.   SJ, LA and ANA all are going to suffer for awhile.   

You're really just saying things with no basis.

 

Again, look at the standings, which are real and current stats/facts.

 

We're bad.

[JM_]

41 minutes ago, IBatch said:

But what about Tyler Toffoli?  You know the most overrated short term Canuck in history other then the 10 million dollar man that supposedly single handedly inspired the Sedins into becoming post season hero's?  

I try not to think about it 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

You're really just saying things with no basis.

 

Again, look at the standings, which are real and current stats/facts.

 

We're bad.

no we had a bad stretch of games. Thats not the same thing.

[kanucks25]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

no we had a bad stretch of games. Thats not the same thing.

Bad teams have bad stretches of games, more often than good teams.

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Bad teams have bad stretches of games, more often than good teams.

sure. How does that explain Calgary vs us? 

[kanucks25]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

sure. How does that explain Calgary vs us? 

They're also bad.

[JM_]

Just now, kanucks25 said:

They're also bad.

maybe there's more to it than that? I don't know why the Canucks had such a bad start, but they climbed out of it to be in 5th. OK so thats not great, but you can see that once they got it together they are a bubble playoff team in a regular season. 

 

I don't know how you can give them no credit for their good play, and all the blame for the bad. 

[The Lock]

20 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Bad teams have bad stretches of games, more often than good teams.

How about this? We struggle with the teams in our division currently. This, of course translates to our division, but it does not necessarily translate league wide. We simply do not know where we would be had it been a normal year and had covid not existed.

 

So when you play just the teams in your division, you're not looking at the entire league when you're looking at the standings.

[kanucks25]

20 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

maybe there's more to it than that? I don't know why the Canucks had such a bad start, but they climbed out of it to be in 5th. OK so thats not great, but you can see that once they got it together they are a bubble playoff team in a regular season. 

 

I don't know how you can give them no credit for their good play, and all the blame for the bad. 

I'm not saying we're as bad as the low points in the season, because boy, they were pretty low (don't think I've ever seen any team play worse defensively... ever?).

 

But I don't know if it was the fluke "run" last year or what but people seem to be under the impression that we're a lot better than what we're showing but I don't really see how that could possibly be the case when you look at our bottom-6 and defense as a whole.

 

The only time we've had success going back a few seasons now is when the goalie (whoever it is at that time) plays unsustainably good. Then, when the goalie predictably comes back down to earth, people look for excuses as to why we're "only temporarily" bad, some much worse than others (like the preseason/training camp hogwash).

Edited April 5, 2021 by kanucks25

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I'm not saying we're as bad as the low points in the season, because boy, they were pretty low (don't think I've ever seen any team play worse defensively... ever?).

 

But I don't know if it was the fluke "run" last year or what but people seem to be under the impression that we're a lot better than what we're showing but I don't really see how that could possibly be the case when you look at our bottom-6 and defense as a whole.

 

The only time we've had success going back a few seasons now is when the goalie (whoever it is at that time) plays unsustainably good. Then, when the goalie predictably comes back down to earth, people look for excuses as to why we're "only temporarily" bad, some much worse than others (like the preseason/training camp hogwash).

yeah it was pretty hairy. But when you look at Schmidt now he's playing much more like the guy we thought we traded for. Hughes is still learning, but he has improved a bit since the start. 

 

With a few more changes and shedding of some players like Roussel I think this team is competitive again next year. We'll never know how close they could have come to MTL this year, I'd say within 6 points had Petey come back healthy and they were still gelling. Given the crap start I'd say thats not too bad. 

 

I just hope we can land a quality 3C, which will make a big difference. 

[kanucks25]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yeah it was pretty hairy. But when you look at Schmidt now he's playing much more like the guy we thought we traded for. Hughes is still learning, but he has improved a bit since the start. 

 

With a few more changes and shedding of some players like Roussel I think this team is competitive again next year. We'll never know how close they could have come to MTL this year, I'd say within 6 points had Petey come back healthy and they were still gelling. Given the crap start I'd say thats not too bad. 

 

I just hope we can land a quality 3C, which will make a big difference. 

You're talking about going forward, I'm talking about this season. Roussel being off the books and us landing a quality 3C will help us going forward - it has nothing to do with the original argument of "a major reason we're bad right now is because of the division".

 

And our record without Pettersson hasn't been too bad, our best stretch came with him out of the lineup (Demko). We're obviously a better team with him than without, but I don't know how many more points we would have got had he had been playing in that particular stretch.

[kanucks25]

42 minutes ago, The Lock said:

How about this? We struggle with the teams in our division currently. This, of course translates to our division, but it does not necessarily translate league wide. We simply do not know where we would be had it been a normal year and had covid not existed.

 

So when you play just the teams in your division, you're not looking at the entire league when you're looking at the standings.

All of what you've said can be true but at the same time, it can still be true that we're actually simply bad.

 

When you look at the the team on paper, especially the bottom-6 and the defense as a whole, it doesn't scream competitor. The eye-test is probably worse.

 

Can you look at the top-3 teams in any division and say with a straight face that we're better than any of them? Maybe Minnesota just because they are a surprise team that nobody really expected to be this consistently good... but they are, and we aren't.

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

You're talking about going forward, I'm talking about this season. Roussel being off the books and us landing a quality 3C will help us going forward - it has nothing to do with the original argument of "a major reason we're bad right now is because of the division".

 

And our record without Pettersson hasn't been too bad, our best stretch came with him out of the lineup (Demko). We're obviously a better team with him than without, but I don't know how many more points we would have got had he had been playing in that particular stretch.

I don't believe that myself, had we come out with a better start we'd be within a game or two of Montreal and we are a better team than Calgary. 

 

I just think we're more capable than maybe you do of having more sustained success. Of course Demko was on fire, but there was also a lot of good play there too from the rest of the team. I'm not thrilled with Green's style, I don't like all of the shots we bleed but it is what it is.

 

One thing I am disappointed in is Holtby, had he won even 2 more games we'd actually be putting a little bit of pressure on MTL. So thats why I don't see us being "bad" vs. having some $&!#e luck to start the year. I don't think we're better than 4th in the division tho. 

[kanucks25]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't believe that myself, had we come out with a better start we'd be within a game or two of Montreal and we are a better team than Calgary. 

 

I just think we're more capable than maybe you do of having more sustained success. Of course Demko was on fire, but there was also a lot of good play there too from the rest of the team. I'm not thrilled with Green's style, I don't like all of the shots we bleed but it is what it is.

 

One thing I am disappointed in is Holtby, had he won even 2 more games we'd actually be putting a little bit of pressure on MTL. So thats why I don't see us being "bad" vs. having some $&!#e luck to start the year. I don't think we're better than 4th in the division tho. 

Take out our stretch of bad games.

 

But then take out every other team's stretch of bad games.

 

And we're right back where we are now.

 

The "if you just take out" argument doesn't work unless "you just take out"  for every team to make it equal.

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Take out our stretch of bad games.

 

But then take out every other team's stretch of bad games.

 

And we're right back where we are now.

 

The "if you just take out" argument doesn't work unless "you just take out"  for every team to make it equal.

hmm... dunno. We did play more than anyone and had less practice time. Maybe that cost us 2 games. If thats true, we're still in the hunt for the last playoff spot. 

[kanucks25]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

hmm... dunno. We did play more than anyone and had less practice time. Maybe that cost us 2 games. If thats true, we're still in the hunt for the last playoff spot. 

Maybe, but look at the game we're playing here lol

 

X and Y hypothetical scenarios that would make us a slightly better bubble team.

 

In other words: we're not good. 

[The Lock]

30 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

All of what you've said can be true but at the same time, it can still be true that we're actually simply bad.

 

When you look at the the team on paper, especially the bottom-6 and the defense as a whole, it doesn't scream competitor. The eye-test is probably worse.

 

Can you look at the top-3 teams in any division and say with a straight face that we're better than any of them? Maybe Minnesota just because they are a surprise team that nobody really expected to be this consistently good... but they are, and we aren't.

The problem with this way of thinking though is you yourself have to be very specific in order to make these claims (ie. top 3 teams in every division). None of this accounts for how good or bad a division is, teams that are doing better than expected, teams that are doing worse than expected. It's effectively just saying "we're bad" and nitpicking something that otherwise would say absolutely nothing.

 

I don't think we're a good team yet, but I don't think we're a bad team either. We've in a tough division which makes us seem worse than we are. For example, is St. Louis a bad team? Is Arizona a good team since they're doing better? There's a lot more grey than just saying "we're good" or "we're bad". I can see it if you said we've had a bad season, but are we a bad team because of it? Not necessarily.

 

At the end of the day, I don't think any of this matters at this point anyway. I look at the potential of this team more than I do where we are now and I don't see a bad team out of it. I see a bad season due to standings, but not a bad team. There is a difference there.