So You Wanna Build a Contender?

[BigTramFan]

On 4/5/2022 at 7:24 AM, deus.ex.makina said:

our shopping list :

 

top 6 RW (shoot first mentality) 

3 C (Speed size with some hands

2nd pairing RD. with toughness and good wheels.

 

any ideas ? 

 

 

Top 6 RWs that can shoot:

Pending UFAs wingers in the 3.5-5.5m range: Marchment, R Smith, Copp, Nichushkin, Niedderreiter, Rakell, E Kane, R Strome

 

3C with speed, size and hands:

Offer sheet Nic Roy for $2.9m (2nd round pick compensation)

 

2nd pairing RD:

Manson (UFA) - lots of interest might cost too much $5m+

Trade Garland for Severson and replace Garland with another one of the top 6 RWs above.

 

Pettersson Miller Podkolzin

Marchment Horvat Strome

Pearson Roy Hoglander

Highmore Lammikko Lockwood

 

OEL Myers

Hughes Severson

Dermott Schenn

[Baggins]

2 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

So try telling any of the teams that make it into the playoffs this year that they are not contending for the Cup. That they should just be lucky they made it to the post season, and just let the REAL contenders take it from here.

 

Look, I get where you are coming from. I gather you mean they wouldn't have been top tier contenders, and no one would have picked them to win, if they'd made the playoffs in '16, '17, '18 ...  But they would still be contenders. Long shot contenders. What else would you call them?  I think its all semantics. 

 

All that said....IF by "contenders", which I have yet to see a JB quote for this, Jim was meaning "squeak into the playoffs,  and count the year a success"   Then I would ask you WHY?  If you believe that Benning saw the team as being miles away from ever achieving anything post season even if we got there, then WHY would he even go that route? Why dump picks and prospects for support players?  Why dip into the FA market to sign LE to a 6 x 6? Why as you describe his motive..."make the playoffs and anything can happen"?  (Surely by "anything" you don't mean contend for the Cup though right?). 

 

So why would a GM sacrifice so much of the farm, especially from a position of already being depleted of good prospects, push a lot of his chips in, spend right to cap, year after year, if he deep down, only expected them to barely make the playoffs?  Is that good GMing to you? Living "day to day" or season to season? Where he dumps more potential prospects, buys out more contracts from his last failed foray, and trades for and signs as FAs, another slew of overpriced vets.  So he can try and squeak in again, earn his boss some first round playoff profits, and call it a season?   Are you endorsing this kind of "live day to day" GMing for your Vancouver Canucks? 

 

IMO good riddance.  He was in way over his head. And had no clear direction at any time. I don't believe he'll ever get another GM job in league again. 

Come on. Contending and contender are two different things in this context.

[aGENT]

9 hours ago, Baggins said:

Come on. Contending and contender are two different things in this context.

Some folks hooked their wagon to that train years ago and refuse to disengage.

 

 

 

It's like it's a "foundational" part of their narrative 

[luongianone]

On 4/6/2022 at 7:16 AM, -DLC- said:

Trading Miller is also risky...it's not a one sided coin. "This is the best year of his career" isn't determined yet, as we can't predict a total drop off in his level of play. Plus, we need guys like that on the team...ones who get fired up and hate to lose.

 

I think people feel we can demand a king's ransom for him but if other teams aren't biting then we aren't reaching "these heights" and shouldn't settle. I think the management team sees that...that he's as valuable to us as he is to others and we determine that worth. Getting shortchanged in the process would be a huge mistake.

 

 

I agree with everything you say. I love Miller and everything that he brings. We have nowhere near enough "fire" on this team and him bringing it is huge. I also think he's a fantastic linemate for Petey. That's one way we'd be able to prolong his impact..playing with Petey. Also helps hide his defensive miscues.

 

It's a risk either way, and we shouldn't trade him for anything less than a haul. But if there's a haul available, I take it and run.

[BPA]

22 hours ago, BigTramFan said:

All this talk of "you need to draft your core to be a contender"...is not necessarily true!

 

Look at Vegas. They are contenders. The only expansion drafted players they have left are Karlsson, Marchessault, Carrier, McNabb. And those guys aren't the core.

 

Vegas either traded for their core or signed them as UFA. It can be done.

Vegas had the benefit of a glorious expansion draft that stupid teams gave extra to keep certain players on their team.  They were not saddled with bad contracts to begin with.  Went on a miracle run on their 1st year.  But just look at them now.  They are at risk of not making the playoffs.  Compare that to Seattle where GMs wised up and offered nothing more in the expansion draft.

 

It’s more likely a blend of good drafting, trades, and UFA to get the “core”.

[BigTramFan]

3 hours ago, BPA said:

Vegas had the benefit of a glorious expansion draft that stupid teams gave extra to keep certain players on their team.  They were not saddled with bad contracts to begin with.  Went on a miracle run on their 1st year.  But just look at them now.  They are at risk of not making the playoffs.  Compare that to Seattle where GMs wised up and offered nothing more in the expansion draft.

 

It’s more likely a blend of good drafting, trades, and UFA to get the “core”.

Yes I agree with that last statement that it can be a good blend of drafting, trades and free agency to get your core. That's why I think it is a little short sighted for people to say that we should not consider signing any UFAs because our "core is not ready". And as important as your core is, your supporting cast is also critical too.

 

Regarding Vega...they are in danger of missing the playoffs due to a bad run of injuries. Not many teams could lose these caliber of players for extended periods (many of them at the same time) and even be close sneaking into the playoffs - Lehner, Stone, Pacioretty, Reilly, Eichel, McNabb, Martinez, Janmark, Patrick...

[iceman64]

On 4/4/2022 at 6:50 AM, D-Money said:

I, like almost all of the people in here, long to see the Canucks get back to true contender status. That brief period in the early 2010s was so special, because it was the only time in the team's history that they were at the top on the league. Cinderella runs are fun and all, but generally the top teams are the ones that end up winning in the end.

 

If we look back at the core of that team - the 5 best players - it was pretty special. IMO they were: Sedin, Sedin, Luongo, Kesler, and Hamhuis. Some might argue with Hammer, and say Edler or Burrows, but the team was deep too, and had many fantastic supporting players.

 

So who are the 5 best players on the team right now? I think it's almost unanimously (in whatever order): Miller, Demko, Hughes, Horvat, and Pettersson. There really isn't another player even remotely threatening bumping one of those 5 from the list. How do they stack up against our top players from a decade ago? I think it's pretty clear that as a group they're not even close.

 

But that was a pretty special team. So the question is, how do they stack up against the best teams in the league right now? Let's compare them to:

 

Colorado - MacKinnon, Makar, Landeskog, Rantanen, Kadri

Florida - Barkov, Ekblad, Huberdeau, Reinhart, Weegar

Tampa - Hedman, Vasilevskiy, Kucherov, Point, Stamkos

 

How does the Canucks' core really stack up? You might be able to argue that the 4th or 5th player compares favorably to Florida. But if a person is honest, they'll agree that overall, the Canucks are nowhere near the level of those teams when it comes to the core. And yet, I think the Canucks' core is actually better than most teams in the league - it's just not one of the best.

 

Then you get to supporting players. Those teams have other players who some might argue should be in that list, or who might at least threaten to bump a guy soon, much like the peak era of Canucks. In fact, if you have a really solid and deep group of supporting players, that can even take a core that is on paper not as good as the teams above and still get them in the discussion as a potential contender (such as Carolina). But the truly top teams usually have not only an elite core, but also a fantastic group of supporting talent.

 

How do the Canucks rate with supporting players? Guys like Boeser, OEL, Garland, Myers, and Pearson. How does that compare with the peak era Canucks, with Edler, Bieksa,  Burrows, Samuelsson, and Ehrhoff? Not well at all, IMO. How about comparing them with the top teams above?

 

Colorado - Toews, Kuemper, Girard, Compher, Nichuskin...

Florida - Bobrovsky, Duclair, Bennett, Lundell, Forsling…

Tampa - McDonaugh, Cirelli, Sergachev, Palat, Cernak...

 

Once again, the Canucks don't really stack up, especially on defense. In fact, as much as I agreed that Canucks had an above average core, I'd argue that their support players are well below average. 

--------------------------

To sum it up, the Canucks likely do not have a good enough core to become a contender, and they certainly do not have the supporting players for it either.
 

The problem is, outside of maybe Podkolzin, are there any youth in the system who can become a top-5 player on a contender? (And I think he's a long-shot for that). And outside of maybe Rathbone and Kilmovich, are there any youth in the system who you would give decent odds on becoming a quality supporting player? There really is not much coming.

 

I think the team needs to add a core player that bumps someone like Horvat into a more supporting role, and at least 1 more high quality supporting player. One of them needs to be a top-pairing defenseman (preferably RD) to push OEL down the depth chart. But how do you find those guys? We don't have the cap space to buy one in free agency. And as mentioned, they aren't likely to come through our shallow prospect pool. If you go back to the lists of core players from various teams, there is the occasional later-round homerun (Kucherov, Point, Demko, Weegar), and equally rare acquiring of one in a trade (Luongo, Miller, Kadri, Reinhart). Most of them were 1st round picks, and generally top-5 ones at that.

 

What do you think? Can Canucks' management find those types of quality players, and turn the team into a true contender? And can they do it fast enough to get ahead of age-related decline in the players were have?

 

Personally, I don't think it's likely at all.

 

Signing Martin on a 2 yr deal was the perfect thing to do, we all saw it coming I think but 2 years is probably enough time to see if his play keeps up with being consistent.

IF Martin can be really good (with proper continued development) with Ian, I think we have a relatively good chance of having another Demko in the making.

Nice to see a guy come out of nowhere and catch attention with the lights out play that he played on his short sample size up with the team earlier this year.

 As Demko made Markstrom redundant, I hope that Martin makes the same with Halak but we'll see right? Here's hoping!

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, iceman64 said:

Signing Martin on a 2 yr deal was the perfect thing to do, we all saw it coming I think but 2 years is probably enough time to see if his play keeps up with being consistent.

IF Martin can be really good (with proper continued development) with Ian, I think we have a relatively good chance of having another Demko in the making.

Nice to see a guy come out of nowhere and catch attention with the lights out play that he played on his short sample size up with the team earlier this year.

 As Demko made Markstrom redundant, I hope that Martin makes the same with Halak but we'll see right? Here's hoping!

Having two goalies that can carry the mail sure goes a long way to making a contender.   Furh/Moog ... Luongo Schnieder .... those games that allow your starter extra relief are definitely important down the stretch.   And when they slip the other is right there to pick up the slack.   Recent example this was MAF/Murray.    Do believe that goaltending could be a team strength for us, same with strength down the middle - Bruce is right saying you'd be hard pressed to find 5 better C's then Miller/Horvat/EP.    Gives the coach options to load a line, and when one goes down it doesn't impact the team as much as it would if we only had two.  

 

Edit:  Team needs Brock back to a 30 plus goal scorer trajectory, or a replacement that is good for 20 plus a year and solid defensively.    And a Manson/Mitchell type.   If we can do that we'd be in great shape with just normal core ascension.    We also need to pick well so we have guys coming up that can replace the core guys we already have. 

 

In the end it's going to take a balanced approach to get back to being a contender.    EP and QHs could reach "superstar" status which would be great - at the same time those third contracts for "superstars" don't usually offer the best value either.    For all the talk and love thrown the peak Sedin teams way, it had issues as well.    Our second line was really Kesler.   And although the third line pitched in and was great at the little things, it wasn't exactly a scoring machine either.    Booth was supposed to be the solution for the second line - didn't work out (and like 6mill today) ... What did the peak Sedin team score again?   270 ish goals ?  About the same as the peak WCE era one and it was full of holes too.   Our balanced and deep D was a massive team strength.    

 

Anyways there is some hope these guys can figure it out.    Pretty low scoring team really so far although recently those 10 goals sure added some pop to it.    Maybe even up with 235 in the end.    Definitely not good enough.    Defensively we are sitting at 10 right now.   Not shabby at all, offensively 23. 

Edited April 9, 2022 by IBatch

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

 Defensively we are sitting at 10 right now.   Not shabby at all, offensively 23. 

Unfortunately/fortunately, a lot of the reason we're at 10th "defensively", is our goalie though.

 

Our (right side) defense needs a major overhaul.

 

Hughes, _____

OEL, _____

Dermott, _____

 

Burroughs, Schenn

 

Improving that would also go a long way to improving our GF.

Edited April 9, 2022 by aGENT

[IBatch]

21 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Unfortunately/fortunately, a lot of the reason we're at 10th "defensively", is our goalie though.

 

Our (right side) defense needs a major overhaul.

 

Hughes, _____

OEL, _____

Dermott, _____

 

Burroughs, Schenn

 

Improving that would also go a long way to improving our GF.

I don't think our goalies are the only reason for that.   Really Demko is maybe hovering around ten right now - right where our GAA is.   Think it has just as much to do with our systems and our players all around but agree we need help on the right side. 

[aGENT]

39 minutes ago, IBatch said:

I don't think our goalies are the only reason for that.   Really Demko is maybe hovering around ten right now - right where our GAA is.   Think it has just as much to do with our systems and our players all around but agree we need help on the right side. 

I think with an average goalie, we'd be a lot closer to 15th (maybe even worse ) "defensively". He masks a lot of issues. 

[IBatch]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I think with an average goalie, we'd be a lot closer to 15th (maybe even worse ) "defensively". He masks a lot of issues. 

Yes he does.   But i don't think he's a top five goalie in this league yet either.   Is he really better then Gibson for example?   Feel he's about the same.   This will be his first full season.   

Edited April 9, 2022 by IBatch

[aGENT]

Just now, IBatch said:

Yes he does.   But i don't think he's a top five goalie in this league yet either.   Is he really better then Gibson for example?   Feel he's about the same. 

Yeah, I'd probably put him in the 5+ range. Give or take. 

 

Though it does get difficult to truly judge that. A lot of those "better" goalies are doing it behind better teams.

 

Good goalies make good teams and vice versa. Chicken, meet egg.

 

Either way, the dog's breakfast side of our D needs an overhaul if we want to become the "contender" of the thread title.  It will move us up both those ranks.

 

I think we can all agree Demko is the furthest thing from an issue

 

[Kevin Biestra]

12 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Yeah, I'd probably put him in the 5+ range. Give or take. 

 

Though it does get difficult to truly judge that. A lot of those "better" goalies are doing it behind better teams.

 

Good goalies make good teams and vice versa. Chicken, meet egg.

 

It was pretty impressive that Luongo was known as a top three goalie for most of a decade without ever making the playoffs once in Florida.

 

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

It was pretty impressive that Luongo was known as a top three goalie for most of a decade without ever making the playoffs once in Florida.

 

Yeah, when goalies have good numbers on crap teams, you know they're good 

[MeanSeanBean]

On 4/7/2022 at 6:14 PM, BigTramFan said:

All this talk of "you need to draft your core to be a contender"...is not necessarily true!

 

Look at Vegas. They are contenders. The only expansion drafted players they have left are Karlsson, Marchessault, Carrier, McNabb. And those guys aren't the core.

 

Vegas either traded for their core or signed them as UFA. It can be done.

technically their entire team was a draft. Just because they don't currently have all the players "drafted" didn't mean they didn't get the value out of those players.

[D-Money]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

Though it does get difficult to truly judge that. A lot of those "better" goalies are doing it behind better teams.

 

Good goalies make good teams and vice versa. Chicken, meet egg.

For a good example of how much a goalie’s performance is affected by the team in front of him, look at Vezina nominee Philipp Grubauer. His save% was .922 last year, and is currently .891.

 

Or, for a Vancouver example, look at Markstrom. Behind Sutter's defensive system, he has 9 shutouts this year. He had 5 in his entire career in Vancouver. Is he's significantly better goalie now? No - it's the team. Put Demko on that team and I think he'd have similar stats. Heck, even Daniel Vladar has 2 shutouts with them.

 

Edited April 9, 2022 by D-Money

[Boudrias]

On 4/7/2022 at 7:17 PM, kilgore said:

 

So try telling any of the teams that make it into the playoffs this year that they are not contending for the Cup. That they should just be lucky they made it to the post season, and just let the REAL contenders take it from here.

 

Look, I get where you are coming from. I gather you mean they wouldn't have been top tier contenders, and no one would have picked them to win, if they'd made the playoffs in '16, '17, '18 ...  But they would still be contenders. Long shot contenders. What else would you call them?  I think its all semantics. 

 

All that said....IF by "contenders", which I have yet to see a JB quote for this, Jim was meaning "squeak into the playoffs,  and count the year a success"   Then I would ask you WHY?  If you believe that Benning saw the team as being miles away from ever achieving anything post season even if we got there, then WHY would he even go that route? Why dump picks and prospects for support players?  Why dip into the FA market to sign LE to a 6 x 6? Why as you describe his motive..."make the playoffs and anything can happen"?  (Surely by "anything" you don't mean contend for the Cup though right?). 

 

So why would a GM sacrifice so much of the farm, especially from a position of already being depleted of good prospects, push a lot of his chips in, spend right to cap, year after year, if he deep down, only expected them to barely make the playoffs?  Is that good GMing to you? Living "day to day" or season to season? Where he dumps more potential prospects, buys out more contracts from his last failed foray, and trades for and signs as FAs, another slew of overpriced vets.  So he can try and squeak in again, earn his boss some first round playoff profits, and call it a season?   Are you endorsing this kind of "live day to day" GMing for your Vancouver Canucks? 

 

IMO good riddance.  He was in way over his head. And had no clear direction at any time. I don't believe he'll ever get another GM job in league again. 

Canucks have made to the Finals 3 times in their history:

1) '82: King Richard carried the team with Steamers help. They weren't serious contenders.

2) '94: A team going in that were not serious contenders and got a bit of luck as they built towards the final round. MacLean and Linden. Best Canuck ever and               should have won the Cup. It was taken from them.

3) '11: Finally a contender. Canucks had lots of offence led by the Sedins. Were rolling over the Bruins until injuries finished them. Luongo filled his pants. 

There is a difference between a contending team and a contender. Also something to be said for teams that can build towards that final series where the Cup is handed out. 

 

[N4ZZY]

On 4/7/2022 at 7:17 PM, kilgore said:

 

So try telling any of the teams that make it into the playoffs this year that they are not contending for the Cup. That they should just be lucky they made it to the post season, and just let the REAL contenders take it from here.

 

Look, I get where you are coming from. I gather you mean they wouldn't have been top tier contenders, and no one would have picked them to win, if they'd made the playoffs in '16, '17, '18 ...  But they would still be contenders. Long shot contenders. What else would you call them?  I think its all semantics. 

 

All that said....IF by "contenders", which I have yet to see a JB quote for this, Jim was meaning "squeak into the playoffs,  and count the year a success"   Then I would ask you WHY?  If you believe that Benning saw the team as being miles away from ever achieving anything post season even if we got there, then WHY would he even go that route? Why dump picks and prospects for support players?  Why dip into the FA market to sign LE to a 6 x 6? Why as you describe his motive..."make the playoffs and anything can happen"?  (Surely by "anything" you don't mean contend for the Cup though right?). 

 

So why would a GM sacrifice so much of the farm, especially from a position of already being depleted of good prospects, push a lot of his chips in, spend right to cap, year after year, if he deep down, only expected them to barely make the playoffs?  Is that good GMing to you? Living "day to day" or season to season? Where he dumps more potential prospects, buys out more contracts from his last failed foray, and trades for and signs as FAs, another slew of overpriced vets.  So he can try and squeak in again, earn his boss some first round playoff profits, and call it a season?   Are you endorsing this kind of "live day to day" GMing for your Vancouver Canucks? 

 

IMO good riddance.  He was in way over his head. And had no clear direction at any time. I don't believe he'll ever get another GM job in league again. 

Yeah. I tend to agree that Benning was not qualified for the GM position for this franchise. I can’t speak for any other team, or how well or not well he would do for any other NHL organization. But for the Canucks. He was God awful. It was true that looking back now, it’s obvious that he did not have any sort of sense of direction. Which must have been frustrating working for the man (can you imagine??). I agree that I don’t think he’ll get another opportunity to be GM over any other franchise in the league. 

[Baggins]

6 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Canucks have made to the Finals 3 times in their history:

1) '82: King Richard carried the team with Steamers help. They weren't serious contenders.

2) '94: A team going in that were not serious contenders and got a bit of luck as they built towards the final round. MacLean and Linden. Best Canuck ever and               should have won the Cup. It was taken from them.

3) '11: Finally a contender. Canucks had lots of offence led by the Sedins. Were rolling over the Bruins until injuries finished them. Luongo filled his pants. 

There is a difference between a contending team and a contender. Also something to be said for teams that can build towards that final series where the Cup is handed out. 

 

I think you have it wrong.

 

'82 You're right they weren't a serious contender. The Oilers were the heavy favorites to come out of the west and also favored to win the cup. A true contender. The path was cleared for the 4th place Canucks by other teams upsetting the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd seeds in the first round. It was after that first ound of upsets that the Canucks were actually considered a cup contender. But that also changed the Isles from cup contender to heavy cup favorite. The only team the Canucks faced that you could argue they shouldn't have beaten was the Isles in the finals. That's not to say they didn't play well to get to the finals. But every team they faced they should have beaten and did. 5th place Calgary should have been their toughess opposition to reach the finals and the Canucks swept them. This was a pure case of "make the playoffs and anything can happen". 

 

'94 Their record and playoff seed was very deceiving. Finally getting their compensation from St Louis for signing Nedved just before the trade deadline was a major upgrade to our D. That really changed the quality of the team, but the regular season record didn't show it. Just enough time for the new players to develop some chimistry with their new team.

 

You won't make the finals if you don't play well. And both of these teams did play well. But both of these "Cinderella runs" also had some real "fairy godmother" assistance involved. You are right that neither was viewed as a contender going into the playoffs though. 

 

'11 We weren't just a contender, but also favorites to win the cup. A true contender. We didn't roll over the Bruins at all though. The simple truth is there were far too many injuries and Thomas played like a Vezina goalie in every game, setting a SCF record for saves, while Luongo only played like a Vezina goalie in 3 games. We sqeaked out three wins by 1 goal in each, and the B's worst win was by 3 goals. The other three win were by 7 goals, and two by 4 goals. I will say this about Luongo, when Salo is the healthiest of your D, and you call Baumgartner to return from vacation, you're in defensive trouble. But Lou standing on his head was our only real hope of winning. A big ask.