Aggressive offseason

[ShawnAntoski]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I dont think its the fans who are restless. Its ownership and Benning. Most fans i talk to would rather he not use up his cap space like he has previously on band aid solutions.

 

He should use it on trying to take advantage of teams teying to not lose younger guys for nothing in the expansion draft. Sign only 1 year cheap vets and dont give the ntc. If the season goes sideways, sell them at the deadline to restock the cupboards and cap space for next offseason.

At the very least, there are the moves a GM would (hopefully) do in a losing season but (for reason) thats not the case with the Canucks - for the most part.

Edited May 26, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[khay]

11 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

Ok fair enough on the Avs but let's say they started rebuilding 2011 when they drafted Landeskog. In 3 years they won their division and bounced in 7 games in the 1st round and took a 3 year dip before being on the rise again. 

 

People compare that year they won their division to the Canucks year in the bubble. Except it took the Avs 3 years to get to that point and Vancouver took 6. 

 

So whoever the GM is for the Avs whatever they are doing their have progressed a much faster pace than Vancouver

It's debatable when the Canucks rebuild started. I think the Canucks rebuild started in 2017, so, yeah we got to where the Avs are in 3 years.

 

I see 2014-2016 as retool years, which failed miserably. Retooling around a couple of 34 year olds usually don't work out. 

 

[ShawnAntoski]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I dont think its the fans who are restless. Its ownership and Benning. Most fans i talk to would rather he not use up his cap space like he has previously on band aid solutions.

 

He should use it on trying to take advantage of teams teying to not lose younger guys for nothing in the expansion draft. Sign only 1 year cheap vets and dont give the ntc. If the season goes sideways, sell them at the deadline to restock the cupboards and cap space for next offseason.

Sesson ticket holders, that sells tickets on game days ?   Regardless, if they just did a more patient approach from the beginning, good chance the fans support will still be there cause despite playing a vet laden line up the yearly results are what it is; and the only good part is - watching the young core develope.  I would argue that it would probably had been the same yearly results if they would had stuck with playing young (low cost) players for highly paid underperforming vets - hindsight.

[Gurn]

5 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:

I would argue that it would probably had been the same yearly results if they would had stuck with playing young (low cost) players for highly paid underperforming vets - hindsight.

And I would say that we would likely have lost games by such a large margin as to crush the young players.

It sucks something out of your soul to lose 6-2 every night.

[khay]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

Not that McDonagh is a bad player but he is getting up there and they'd likely happily clear his cap (given how over they are). But as of right now they're likely losing Foote to Sea.

 

Not ideal if your Tampa.

 

If we moved them say an ED exempt Woo + for Cernak, allowing them to protect Foote and expose McDonagh (and adding his cap)... They might just bite.

 

Getting Cernak for Woo+ would be great. But from Tampa's point of view, they could always give up a pick or something so that Seattle selects McDonagh and they get to keep Sergachev-Cernak-Foote.

 

[aGENT]

33 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

Ok fair enough on the Avs but let's say they started rebuilding 2011 when they drafted Landeskog. In 3 years they won their division and bounced in 7 games in the 1st round and took a 3 year dip before being on the rise again. 

 

People compare that year they won their division to the Canucks year in the bubble. Except it took the Avs 3 years to get to that point and Vancouver took 6. 

 

So whoever the GM is for the Avs whatever they are doing their have progressed a much faster pace than Vancouver

When was their last sustained playoff appearances? When was Vancouver's?

[wallstreetamigo]

25 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:

At the very least, there are the moves a GM would (hopefully) do in a losing season but (for reason) thats not the case with the Canucks - for the most part.

I cant think of a single year in the past 5 that the Canucks were actually reasonably competitive and should have taken a go for it approach.

 

The past is done and has largely failed in retooling the team. Time for a different approach going forward imo.

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, khay said:

Getting Cernak for Woo+ would be great. But from Tampa's point of view, they could always give up a pick or something so that Seattle selects McDonagh and they get to keep Sergachev-Cernak-Foote.

 

So you find a happy medium where they feel there getting value of Woo + and keeping Foote (who we could also target/would be cheaper) without having to pay Seattle to take McDonagh.

 

[Bertuzzipunch]

17 minutes ago, khay said:

Getting Cernak for Woo+ would be great. But from Tampa's point of view, they could always give up a pick or something so that Seattle selects McDonagh and they get to keep Sergachev-Cernak-Foote.

 

Wat about hedman lol

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

When was their last sustained playoff appearances? When was Vancouver's?

Doesnt matter. Their team is stacked now as a result of how they built patiently and took their lumps.

 

16 minutes ago, khay said:

Getting Cernak for Woo+ would be great. But from Tampa's point of view, they could always give up a pick or something so that Seattle selects McDonagh and they get to keep Sergachev-Cernak-Foote.

 

This is very likely what they will do. Pay a pick or assets to get Seattle to take someone specific.

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, aGENT said:

So you find a happy medium where they feel there getting value of Woo + and keeping Foote (who we could also target/would be cheaper) without having to pay Seattle to take McDonagh.

 

damn, all this talk of upgrading our d with a Tampa trade makes me want the Florida Luongo's to make a comeback and knock Tampa out of the 1st round. 

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Doesnt matter. Their team is stacked now as a result of how they built patiently and took their lumps.

It does when the discussion is of 'how long' .

 

 

[wallstreetamigo]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

damn, all this talk of upgrading our d with a Tampa trade makes me want the Florida Luongo's to make a comeback and knock Tampa out of the 1st round. 

They have several playerd they dont want to lose and a few they really do want to lose.

 

To me, that suggests their cheapest option to make that happen is deal directly with Seattle. 

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

damn, all this talk of upgrading our d with a Tampa trade makes me want the Florida Luongo's to make a comeback and knock Tampa out of the 1st round. 

I'd be pretty happy with that as I have Huberdeau, Bennett and Acciari in my hockey pool 

[mll]

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

So you find a happy medium where they feel there getting value of Woo + and keeping Foote (who we could also target/would be cheaper) without having to pay Seattle to take McDonagh.

 

Tampa has to shed cap space.  They also want to remain competitive - Brisebois talks of winning multiple Cups with their core that includes Cernak.  Picks and prospects likely have little value to them with their window wide open now - cf the high picks they gave up to add Coleman, Goodrow.  They even let go Carter Verhaeghe to free agency to avoid arbitration and be forced to remove from their roster.   Would expect them to be far more willing to give up picks and prospects to get a deal done and have Seattle pick the player they wish to move than loose valuable roster players for picks and prospects who don’t help them win now.  

[wallstreetamigo]

Just now, aGENT said:

It does when the discussion is of 'how long' .

 

 

Not really though. They are now built for sustainable success. They built the right way and I have no doubt they will win a cup soon.

 

Getting into the playoffs and having a long run is not the only measure of team success though. It relies on a lot of factors the individual team has no control over.

[ShawnAntoski]

31 minutes ago, gurn said:

And I would say that we would likely have lost games by such a large margin as to crush the young players.

It sucks something out of your soul to lose 6-2 every night.

I get it but the yearly results would sill be comparable and it would had been prudent to give the young players a chance like other teams in a losing season. I would argue, that most players would probably be unaffected (for the most part) cause they can just focus on getting better for the next season ; and are probably be more understanding of the situation - Mikey D got hammered during his first game but the experience gave him an idea of what he needs to work on to play in the NHL.

[ShawnAntoski]

22 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I cant think of a single year in the past 5 that the Canucks were actually reasonably competitive and should have taken a go for it approach.

 

The past is done and has largely failed in retooling the team. Time for a different approach going forward imo.

Yeah, more of the same cast (hopefully most/all of the FA'S walk) but hoping for a different result.  

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Not really though. 

Yes really. The discussion wasn't who 'rebuilt better' or who's 'built better'. The discussion was 'how long'. 

 

The length between consistent playoff teams for rebuilding clubs is overwhelmingly +/- 10 years. 

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, mll said:

Tampa has to shed cap space.  They also want to remain competitive - Brisebois talks of winning multiple Cups with their core that includes Cernak.  Picks and prospects likely have little value to them with their window wide open now - cf the high picks they gave up to add Coleman, Goodrow.  They even let go Carter Verhaeghe to free agency to avoid arbitration and be forced to remove from their roster.   Would expect them to be far more willing to give up picks and prospects to get a deal done and have Seattle pick the player they wish to move than loose valuable roster players for picks and prospects who don’t help them win now.  

I'd happily take Foote instead.