The Defense of JB and co

[wallstreetamigo]

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Why are we being compared to Colorado?

 

The Avs were in the decline while we were dominant

 

Since 2009 the Avs have picked in the top 5 five times.  With a 1st 2nd 3rd and two 4th overall picks to show for it.  They've also had a few drafts where they managed to pick twice in the top 15 in that time.  Numerous times they've amanged to obtain multiple picks in the first 3 rounds and rarely had no 1st round pick.

 

VS the Nucks 

 

Since 2009 the Canucks have drafted in the 5 spot twice and never higher.  6 of our picks were top 10, but two of those drafts we had no 1st round picks at all, with an additional 4 of those picks being lower than 20th.

 

The Avs ARE the current dream, no love lost to the masterful cap management of the Bolts; who also drafted in the top 3 a few times and struck gold.

 

The Canucks would need serious draft luck to get the game breaking players the Avs did in Raantanen, Makar, Mackinnon.  They also don't have an O'Reilly and Duchene to kick around either.

 

The Avs are a dream model, but we cannot be compared to them through or via drafting because we never had that luck

I dont know if Colorado's success can be attributed to luckily drafting high. They sucked for a good long awhile but they also recognized it was going to happen and extracted max value out of that.

 

They made smart trades with some key players and picked twice in a couple of first rounds because they knew when and how to sell.

 

The Canucks took a completely different approach and have had far less positive impact with it. Thats why there is no comparison between Col and Van.

 

Colorado has drafted very well, traded very well, and made some quality ufa signings. They have also accumulated picks and managed their cap very effectively. By comparison, the Canucks have drafted very well, been below average in trading, and been abysmal at ufa signings. They have traded picks rather than accumulating them and mismanaged the cap pretty badly.

 

If you can do well at all of those things you are set up for sustainable success.

[ShawnAntoski]

12 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I dont know if Colorado's success can be attributed to luckily drafting high. They sucked for a good long awhile but they also recognized it was going to happen and extracted max value out of that.

 

They made smart trades with some key players and picked twice in a couple of first rounds because they knew when and how to sell.

 

The Canucks took a completely different approach and have had far less positive impact with it. Thats why there is no comparison between Col and Van.

 

Colorado has drafted very well, traded very well, and made some quality ufa signings. They have also accumulated picks and managed their cap very effectively. By comparison, the Canucks have drafted very well, been below average in trading, and been abysmal at ufa signings. They have traded picks rather than accumulating them and mismanaged the cap pretty badly.

 

If you can do well at all of those things you are set up for sustainable success.

Yeah, different philosophy of rebuilding or a different approach in asset management in a losing season.  

Edited June 4, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[wallstreetamigo]

29 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:

Yeah, different philosophy of rebuilding or a different approach in asset management in a losing season.  

Colorado, like it seems all the best run teams do, recognized a few things. First, that incremental improvement on the roster year in and year out is key. There are no quick fixes to go from the basement to contender. That led to a lot of criticism for Sakic early on. But the patient, methodical moves are paying off. Second, they resigned themselves to the fact that the worst place to be when trying to rebuild is that NHL no mans land where your ultimate goal is making the playoffs. They treated making the playoffs as a bonus from following the strategy of a proper rebuild. Third, they identified the players they did not think they would win with and traded them at the peak of their value. Those trades took a lot of discipline and belief in the strategy.

 

I think in terms of overall effectiveness the Avs are the best managed team in the NHL. Did they suffer a lot to get there? For sure.

[Hairy Kneel]

3 hours ago, DefCon1 said:

Also Ericksson has one year left with 3 million dollar in real money owed since Canucks have paid his bonuses so a rebuilding team could use his cap hit for one year to hit cap floor while spending less. He is now a lot more tradeable than last year.

That would be smart to defer Eriksson cap to the next year, use him as a PK for the season , and add whatever they are missing from their roster with his cap room next year. They'll have enough high end talent to organize from the ED. Save some money this year to add next year. 

[EastVanCanuck]

Surprising this thread has been hijacked again by a bunch of media troll click weasels. 

 

Blah blah Benning sucks Bla blah blah other teams are better blah blah ....

 

All the while setting up their new narratives for their next story.  

[ShawnAntoski]

7 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Colorado, like it seems all the best run teams do, recognized a few things. First, that incremental improvement on the roster year in and year out is key. There are no quick fixes to go from the basement to contender. That led to a lot of criticism for Sakic early on. But the patient, methodical moves are paying off. Second, they resigned themselves to the fact that the worst place to be when trying to rebuild is that NHL no mans land where your ultimate goal is making the playoffs. They treated making the playoffs as a bonus from following the strategy of a proper rebuild. Third, they identified the players they did not think they would win with and traded them at the peak of their value. Those trades took a lot of discipline and belief in the strategy.

 

I think in terms of overall effectiveness the Avs are the best managed team in the NHL. Did they suffer a lot to get there? For sure.

Yeah, they seem to identify and accept a losing season early on and makes the necessary moves for long term gain; probably a reason, why MacKinnon is willing to sign long term cause he believes what Sakic is selling & doing - yearly improvements is really a good indicator rather done being stuck in no mans land of being a middle of the pack type team; hope JB will continue his drafting mojo.

[Hairy Kneel]

Well definitely the Toronto model is a huge fail. 

[Honky Cat]

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/canucks-reaching-the-heights-of-the-colorado-avalanche-will-take-a-lot-of-work

 

Patrick Johnson is obviously aiming to rile up the masses with his latest blurb in the Province.Focusing on the Canucks ineptitude.

However, he conveniently leaves out the fact, that from 2006-17 (eleven years), the Avs only made the post season three times.

They also won the lottery.

[D-Money]

1 hour ago, Honky Cat said:

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/canucks-reaching-the-heights-of-the-colorado-avalanche-will-take-a-lot-of-work

 

Patrick Johnson is obviously aiming to rile up the masses with his latest blurb in the Province.Focusing on the Canucks ineptitude.

However, he conveniently leaves out the fact, that from 2006-17 (eleven years), the Avs only made the post season three times.

They also won the lottery.

That was a very realistic article. Canucks aren’t a couple years and a few players from being an elite Cup contender. Even if things go right (and they eventually become one), it will take 3-5 years.

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, D-Money said:

That was a very realistic article. Canucks aren’t a couple years and a few players from being an elite Cup contender. Even if things go right (and they eventually become one), it will take 3-5 years.

I agree

[wallstreetamigo]

2 hours ago, Honky Cat said:

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/canucks-reaching-the-heights-of-the-colorado-avalanche-will-take-a-lot-of-work

 

Patrick Johnson is obviously aiming to rile up the masses with his latest blurb in the Province.Focusing on the Canucks ineptitude.

However, he conveniently leaves out the fact, that from 2006-17 (eleven years), the Avs only made the post season three times.

They also won the lottery.

I thought it was a well researched and well written article. He relied not on his own opinion but that of people around the league.

 

Every point in there was pretty much spot on.

 

The Avs didnt put their sole focus on making the playoffs every year. They truly rebuilt and were realistic every year about what moves they needed to make to support that long term goal.

 

The Canucks have had opportunities to win the lottery too. Several times the problem has been an unwillingness to pull the plug on a lost season early enough. Play the kids and see what you have. If you win, great. If you lose, who cares?  Dont go all in with the veterans trying to win meaningless games at the end of the year to accomplish nothing but tanking your draft odds.

 

 

[ShawnAntoski]

13 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I thought it was a well researched and well written article. He relied not on his own opinion but that of people around the league.

 

Every point in there was pretty much spot on.

 

The Avs didnt put their sole focus on making the playoffs every year. They truly rebuilt and were realistic every year about what moves they needed to make to support that long term goal.

 

The Canucks have had opportunities to win the lottery too. Several times the problem has been an unwillingness to pull the plug on a lost season early enough. Play the kids and see what you have. If you win, great. If you lose, who cares?  Dont go all in with the veterans trying to win meaningless games at the end of the year to accomplish nothing but tanking your draft odds.

 

 

Yeah, (been saying for awhile now) that in this losing season it would had been prudent to play & showcase the future - over now.  
 

Despite the staffs, deployment of a veteran laden line up for most of the season - it still turned out to be a losing season. 

 

 

[Fred65]

11 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I thought it was a well researched and well written article. He relied not on his own opinion but that of people around the league.

 

Every point in there was pretty much spot on.

 

The Avs didnt put their sole focus on making the playoffs every year. They truly rebuilt and were realistic every year about what moves they needed to make to support that long term goal.

 

The Canucks have had opportunities to win the lottery too. Several times the problem has been an unwillingness to pull the plug on a lost season early enough. Play the kids and see what you have. If you win, great. If you lose, who cares?  Dont go all in with the veterans trying to win meaningless games at the end of the year to accomplish nothing but tanking your draft odds.

 

 

For too many fans realism holds no sway. You say any thing that fails to inflate the Canucks then the article  and the journalist who researched printed the story become unacceptable and deserves ridicule    .... wrong, read and learn

[ShawnAntoski]

17 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I hope he doesn't. But will not at all be surprised to see a Sutter 3x3 or Edler 2x4 deal tbh.

Hope not at those cost

[Honky Cat]

37 minutes ago, D-Money said:

That was a very realistic article. Canucks aren’t a couple years and a few players from being an elite Cup contender. Even if things go right (and they eventually become one), it will take 3-5 years.

There's no doubt the Av's are ahead of the Canucks, nobody is arguing that.

My point was that the Av's got their core for being awful for over a decade.

 

[D-Money]

15 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

There's no doubt the Av's are ahead of the Canucks, nobody is arguing that.

My point was that the Av's got their core for being awful for over a decade.

 

And if they win, let alone win multiple times, it will have been worth it.

 

Being awful isn’t a bad strategy. Sometimes, it’s better than picking 9th.

[Honky Cat]

21 minutes ago, D-Money said:

And if they win, let alone win multiple times, it will have been worth it.

 

Being awful isn’t a bad strategy. Sometimes, it’s better than picking 9th.

I guess the Sabres are going to be the next powerhouse then?

[JM_]

1 hour ago, D-Money said:

That was a very realistic article. Canucks aren’t a couple years and a few players from being an elite Cup contender. Even if things go right (and they eventually become one), it will take 3-5 years.

why do we need to be "elite" cup contenders? a lot of good cup contenders have made the distance. We need to be a more compete team, but once you're in you can be LA or you can be Tampa. 

[JM_]

6 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Well definitely the Toronto model is a huge fail. 

there's more than one way to build a team. So we're 5 years from becoming Colorado. So does that mean with some good moves we can be 2013/14 LA in one year? 

 

I actually think we have some interesting comparable to that teams make up with our current group and guys like Podkolzin on the way. We're still missing key pieces in the bottom 6 but I don't think we're far off at all from what that team was.

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, Honky Cat said:

There's no doubt the Av's are ahead of the Canucks, nobody is arguing that.

My point was that the Av's got their core for being awful for over a decade.

 

No they didn't.

 

They got their core by recognizing the landscape and maximizing the benefits of being awful for a decade. They were not accidentally bad or intentionally bad. They just didnt go all out every year trying to find quick fixes. Pretty much every move they made was with the long term goal in mind. And its why they are so well built now.

 

Benning got his core by being awful for 7 years. The difference is he resisted taking full advantage of being awful or he might be much better off now.