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

[GDT/PGT] Vancouver Canucks vs Calgary Flames | May 16, 2021 | 7:30 p.m. PT | SNP | PLAYOFF SERIES VS CALGARY EDITION

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Outsiders said:

Hoglander plays with the most consistent effort on the team....

I was being facetious.  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Devron44 said:

That’s the thing no GM could have turned this team into a cup winner in 7 years with what JB had to work with at the start. It’s too bad we couldn’t have started the real work 7 years ago as well. Sedins, re-tool, etc. It’s not all on JB. I tend to not get into it with people about grading the GM. It’s a pointless argument. People have there feeling and that won’t change. I could go on and on about the good and bad moves JB has made.
 

At the end of the day if JB were to leave tomorrow his hands are all over this team and the core of young players and the new GM will reap the rewards of what he has to work with. The rebuild is set, its getting these kids more experience and adding to the team over the next couple years. I could see us back in the playoffs next year but I’m an optimistic one. I’m not doom and gloom over here. 

I disagree that another GM could not have turned around the Canucks in 7 years. Or even 4 years.

 

One significant change in strategy, even if the end goal was the same, would have positioned the Canucks much better.

 

Lets start with the fact that this has never been an actual rebuild. It has been a retool every year that has happened to fail so spectacularly that the Canucks have been able to draft high. You dont have to agree but almost every move JB has made supports that conclusion.

 

So, assuming that bringing in vets and waiver eligible tweener players to keep the team going was a major part of the plan, lets look at how that could have been approached differently.

 

Cap space is the most valuable trading commodity in the current NHL. A lot of teams pay prospects and high picks to offload cap space. So instead of trading at premium prices or signing guys like Beagle, Roussel, Myers, Sutter, Schaller, Baertschi, Eriksson, etc. - and apparently having to overpay for them to come to a bottom feeder team - the Canucks could have got similar quality players plus assets by taking those guys from teams desperate to move their cap hits.

 

Its the same result. A bunch of placeholder type players with a pile more picks and prospects that could then round out the team during its competitive window or be packaged up to bring in top quality players to fill holes as necessary.

 

Trading those vets at the deadline for more assets (since you didnt have to overpay them and give them ntc to sign them) as they come due then repeating the process of using cap space to acquire players plus assets until the core was ready to contend.

 

Benning fans will find a way to disagree of course but this strategy would probably already have the team starting to open their window.

 

  • Haha 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its also disingenuous to say it took X team 12 years to win a cup so therefore the Canucks are in great shape.

 

Winning the cup is not the bar. The bar is how long until those teams were competitive again. Not many of the top contenders have been this bad for this long while still not actually rebuilding completely. A cap maxed team every year and a bottom feeder all that time is a strong indication the strategy and plan is not working at all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I disagree that another GM could not have turned around the Canucks in 7 years. Or even 4 years.

 

One significant change in strategy, even if the end goal was the same, would have positioned the Canucks much better.

 

Lets start with the fact that this has never been an actual rebuild. It has been a retool every year that has happened to fail so spectacularly that the Canucks have been able to draft high. You dont have to agree but almost every move JB has made supports that conclusion.

 

So, assuming that bringing in vets and waiver eligible tweener players to keep the team going was a major part of the plan, lets look at how that could have been approached differently.

 

Cap space is the most valuable trading commodity in the current NHL. A lot of teams pay prospects and high picks to offload cap space. So instead of trading at premium prices or signing guys like Beagle, Roussel, Myers, Sutter, Schaller, Baertschi, Eriksson, etc. - and apparently having to overpay for them to come to a bottom feeder team - the Canucks could have got similar quality players plus assets by taking those guys from teams desperate to move their cap hits.

 

Its the same result. A bunch of placeholder type players with a pile more picks and prospects that could then round out the team during its competitive window or be packaged up to bring in top quality players to fill holes as necessary.

 

Trading those vets at the deadline for more assets (since you didnt have to overpay them and give them ntc to sign them) as they come due then repeating the process of using cap space to acquire players plus assets until the core was ready to contend.

 

Benning fans will find a way to disagree of course but this strategy would probably already have the team starting to open their window.

 

If JB had free will to start a full rebuild at the beginning then ya maybe you’re right but the way I see it. When is the last time a young core like the Canucks have won a cup, it’s usually a veteran core that wins a cup. Mid to late 20’s. People are sad we took a step back in a trying year. I actually don’t gaf. I love this team and the timing of these contracts coming off the books Is going to work out nicely. I also don’t gaf if Benning is fired. Most of the pieces are here already 

 

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Devron44 said:

If JB had free will to start a full rebuild at the beginning then ya maybe you’re right but the way I see it. When is the last time a young core like the Canucks have won a cup, it’s usually a veteran core that wins a cup. Mid to late 20’s. People are sad we took a step back in a trying year. I actually don’t gaf. I love this team and the timing of these contracts coming off the books Is going to work out nicely. I also don’t gaf if Benning is fired. Most of the pieces are here already 

 

I dont think in a substantial way you are actually disagreeing with my point.

 

The plan, no matter when it actually started, should have been with a clear eye on when the team could expect to be actually competitive.

 

Accumulating assets is the best way to be able to add those key veteran players when your core is ready.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I disagree that another GM could not have turned around the Canucks in 7 years. Or even 4 years.

 

One significant change in strategy, even if the end goal was the same, would have positioned the Canucks much better.

 

Lets start with the fact that this has never been an actual rebuild. It has been a retool every year that has happened to fail so spectacularly that the Canucks have been able to draft high. You dont have to agree but almost every move JB has made supports that conclusion.

 

So, assuming that bringing in vets and waiver eligible tweener players to keep the team going was a major part of the plan, lets look at how that could have been approached differently.

 

Cap space is the most valuable trading commodity in the current NHL. A lot of teams pay prospects and high picks to offload cap space. So instead of trading at premium prices or signing guys like Beagle, Roussel, Myers, Sutter, Schaller, Baertschi, Eriksson, etc. - and apparently having to overpay for them to come to a bottom feeder team - the Canucks could have got similar quality players plus assets by taking those guys from teams desperate to move their cap hits.

 

Its the same result. A bunch of placeholder type players with a pile more picks and prospects that could then round out the team during its competitive window or be packaged up to bring in top quality players to fill holes as necessary.

 

Trading those vets at the deadline for more assets (since you didnt have to overpay them and give them ntc to sign them) as they come due then repeating the process of using cap space to acquire players plus assets until the core was ready to contend.

 

Benning fans will find a way to disagree of course but this strategy would probably already have the team starting to open their window.

 

It's all endless paragraphs to deal with hypotheticals. Whatabout-ery..if we apply such thinking to global conflicts, we might even have world peace!

But there's one place that likes to meddle in everyone else's affairs.

 

Maybe it's the same in this US-interest sporting league? Maybe just like the reffing & disciplinary inconsistencies, you could NEVER count on the fair, equitable player transactions, that so many Van/JB-detractors dream up?

 

Are you 100% certain this league is run honestly? I'm not.

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Its also disingenuous to say it took X team 12 years to win a cup so therefore the Canucks are in great shape.

 

Winning the cup is not the bar. The bar is how long until those teams were competitive again. Not many of the top contenders have been this bad for this long while still not actually rebuilding completely. A cap maxed team every year and a bottom feeder all that time is a strong indication the strategy and plan is not working at all.

Chicago had 10 sub .500 seasons in the 11 seasons between 96-97 and 07-08 without ever actually starting their rebuild until 2004. At which point they used there 3rd overall pick in 2004 to draft Cam Barker and there 7th overall in 2005 to draft Jack Skille. My point is that it takes time.

 

Vancouver has been rebuilding for 5 years now even if they never actually want to call it that. We have been spending to the cap because that's what it takes to attract vet free agents to come in and play on a team that isn't going to be competitive. They are here for more of a mentorship role than anything, to teach the young core players that advance quickly how to be a pro so that they can in turn teach the new youth as it arrives and so on and so on. They will say we are going to be competitive but that's just lip service, and if you believe it that's on you. 

 

Do you honestly think that it's some kind of coincidence that all of these higher money vet contracts expire right at the same time all of our youth has been given time to develop properly and our ready to start stepping in to the NHL as more seasoned pros and not just kids thrown out on the ice in a trail by fire, that didn't work so well for Edmonton.

 

I agree it's tough hearing the GM say every year that he believes we can compete and then seeing them fail but again he is only saying that because no one wants to hear that management is icing a team that they expect to fail miserably. That's actual bad management, not what JB has been doing, he has made plenty of mistakes as GM in 7 years but guess what so has EVERY GM IN THE LEAGUE. He has also given this team a core that will make us competitive for a decade. Not just a one and done. There will be some more pain but there will be more good times than bad over the next decade, no matter who replaces JB as new GM and it will be with the core players JB got us.

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I dont think in a substantial way you are actually disagreeing with my point.

 

The plan, no matter when it actually started, should have been with a clear eye on when the team could expect to be actually competitive.

 

Accumulating assets is the best way to be able to add those key veteran players when your core is ready.

Communication with fans was never a strong point of JBs. He actually just wants to please the fans but also answer to ownership. 
 

We saw it at the beginning of his tenure dropping player names. I think he actually got fined for. We saw how excited he was drafting Hughes. Then there’s the fine line of giving fans hope quicker and actually rebuilding. Imagine if he told us it’s gonna take 10 years lol.

 

I like what we have brewing here but I don’t ignore there’s been mistakes along the way. Nor do I ignore the fact we have a way brighter future then a lot of teams 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Ah.....no wonder....damn thing must be on the fritz....

Sarcasm Detector 1.0.2 Free Download

:lol:

Edited by spook007
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I disagree that another GM could not have turned around the Canucks in 7 years. Or even 4 years.

 

One significant change in strategy, even if the end goal was the same, would have positioned the Canucks much better.

 

Lets start with the fact that this has never been an actual rebuild. It has been a retool every year that has happened to fail so spectacularly that the Canucks have been able to draft high. You dont have to agree but almost every move JB has made supports that conclusion.

 

So, assuming that bringing in vets and waiver eligible tweener players to keep the team going was a major part of the plan, lets look at how that could have been approached differently.

 

Cap space is the most valuable trading commodity in the current NHL. A lot of teams pay prospects and high picks to offload cap space. So instead of trading at premium prices or signing guys like Beagle, Roussel, Myers, Sutter, Schaller, Baertschi, Eriksson, etc. - and apparently having to overpay for them to come to a bottom feeder team - the Canucks could have got similar quality players plus assets by taking those guys from teams desperate to move their cap hits.

 

Its the same result. A bunch of placeholder type players with a pile more picks and prospects that could then round out the team during its competitive window or be packaged up to bring in top quality players to fill holes as necessary.

 

Trading those vets at the deadline for more assets (since you didnt have to overpay them and give them ntc to sign them) as they come due then repeating the process of using cap space to acquire players plus assets until the core was ready to contend.

 

Benning fans will find a way to disagree of course but this strategy would probably already have the team starting to open their window.

 

One thing you're forgetting is the culture element. These guys were all brought in to play the hard mins and be quality people for young prospects learning the league.  Imagine EP/BB/Hughes/Demko etc.  playing with ringers that don't necessarily have the leadership/buy in that these guys have.  It can create a very toxic environment and not one you want to have your future core pieces develop in.  

 

Yes, the cap hits arnt the most efficient and yes you can also argue that JB might have gambled wrong on how productive some of these players would be but cant ignore the quality of character these players were.  What really hurt JBs plans were no one predicted a COVID flat cap for a few years and the Luongo re cap didn't help.  

 

Signing these guys was part of the plan to develop the young players in a supportive environment.  Just look at this season now-Miller, Myers, Edler etc.  arnt going to mail it in.  The young guys need to have leaders like that around.  

 

But moving forward who knows what will happen.  Fan frustration is pretty high and optics probably demand changes.  Personally, I get why people think a team president is needed like Linden.  Someone who can articulate the GM and coaches plans, esp. if JB and Green stay on.

 

  • Hydration 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Devron44 said:

Communication with fans was never a strong point of JBs. He actually just wants to please the fans but also answer to ownership. 
 

We saw it at the beginning of his tenure dropping player names. I think he actually got fined for. We saw how excited he was drafting Hughes. Then there’s the fine line of giving fans hope quicker and actually rebuilding. Imagine if he told us it’s gonna take 10 years lol.

 

I like what we have brewing here but I don’t ignore there’s been mistakes along the way. Nor do I ignore the fact we have a way brighter future then a lot of teams 

It's a fine line between becoming something great or turning into say Calgary where expectations were high and the future looked bright yet now after all these years Calgary is at a crossroads with their core because they just cant seem to get it done. 

 

I've been optimistic that this team is trending in the right direction and has nice pieces but the glass half empty side of me sees that unless somebody competent enough comes in and surrounds the core pieces with good talent. Not just through the draft because its unrealistic to compose a team strictly of your own draft picks, but through good hockey trades, not overpaying UFA's, and great asset management. I have zero faith this group can do that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pickly said:

It's a fine line between becoming something great or turning into say Calgary where expectations were high and the future looked bright yet now after all these years Calgary is at a crossroads with their core because they just cant seem to get it done. 

 

I've been optimistic that this team is trending in the right direction and has nice pieces but the glass half empty side of me sees that unless somebody competent enough comes in and surrounds the core pieces with good talent, a lot of this could be wasted. Not just through the draft because its unrealistic to compose a team strictly of your own draft picks, but through good hockey trades, not overpaying UFA's, and great asset management. I have zero faith this group can do that. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a reason I'm not freaked out and panicking. 

Because as a fan I too suffered through the worst of times. 

When Steven Bellringer a corporate axe man was hired to cut Quinn loose. That was the worst management I've ever seen.

They literally didn't have any plan. They hired a Coach to be an Interm GM. Basically did a scorched earth plan.

Kept Naslund, Ohlund, Bertuzzi and eventually the coach and he who shall not be named moved on. 

It took Burke to at least give the team respectability.

 

As bad as some Benning moves are. It's better than the Mess era. 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pickly said:

It's a fine line between becoming something great or turning into say Calgary where expectations were high and the future looked bright yet now after all these years Calgary is at a crossroads with their core because they just cant seem to get it done. 

 

I've been optimistic that this team is trending in the right direction and has nice pieces but the glass half empty side of me sees that unless somebody competent enough comes in and surrounds the core pieces with good talent. Not just through the draft because its unrealistic to compose a team strictly of your own draft picks, but through good hockey trades, not overpaying UFA's, and great asset management. I have zero faith this group can do that. 

I ain’t worried about it honestly and I don’t really care what people think of that. Each to their own. Who knows what happens this off-season but I’m fine with JB. Until then cheers.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 204CanucksFan said:

Chicago had 10 sub .500 seasons in the 11 seasons between 96-97 and 07-08 without ever actually starting their rebuild until 2004. At which point they used there 3rd overall pick in 2004 to draft Cam Barker and there 7th overall in 2005 to draft Jack Skille. My point is that it takes time.

 

Vancouver has been rebuilding for 5 years now even if they never actually want to call it that. We have been spending to the cap because that's what it takes to attract vet free agents to come in and play on a team that isn't going to be competitive. They are here for more of a mentorship role than anything, to teach the young core players that advance quickly how to be a pro so that they can in turn teach the new youth as it arrives and so on and so on. They will say we are going to be competitive but that's just lip service, and if you believe it that's on you. 

 

Do you honestly think that it's some kind of coincidence that all of these higher money vet contracts expire right at the same time all of our youth has been given time to develop properly and our ready to start stepping in to the NHL as more seasoned pros and not just kids thrown out on the ice in a trail by fire, that didn't work so well for Edmonton.

 

I agree it's tough hearing the GM say every year that he believes we can compete and then seeing them fail but again he is only saying that because no one wants to hear that management is icing a team that they expect to fail miserably. That's actual bad management, not what JB has been doing, he has made plenty of mistakes as GM in 7 years but guess what so has EVERY GM IN THE LEAGUE. He has also given this team a core that will make us competitive for a decade. Not just a one and done. There will be some more pain but there will be more good times than bad over the next decade, no matter who replaces JB as new GM and it will be with the core players JB got us.

I wish more people had a more objective and thoughtful perspective on things like you. Hit the nail in the head with this post.

 

I would also like to ask armchair GMs, alternatively, what route did you see us taking through where we would be cup contenders this year? All facts considered, I'd like someone to present a realistic plan we could've taken to our route to being contenders this year like a lot of posters here and especially on twitter expected. Keeping in mind our prospect pool when JB took over, the Sedins wanting to compete until the end of the 2017-2018 season, and the fact we had one of the most bizarre seasons due to many factors after a fairly successful one last year. Instead of the usual doom, gloom and complaining, I really want to hear of a constructive, reality based alternative path. This will at least make for a good discussion. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Petey_BOI said:

Yeah.... but he should have been in vancouver, so he could address the media. It's too bad, we never knew how that situation would have turned out.

 

maybe in the future, they will invent a application that can allow you to give comments from literally anywhere.

Get what you’re Petey, but personally I’m happy he concentrated on the coming draft. I have zero doubt persons from within the club, has taken care of the situation, and the way they actually put a blanket over it, seems to have calmed it down. 

A terrible situation for the club regardless...

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...