the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 16619
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

Post by Strangelove » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
Hey Rikster,

Been a while, hope everything is good with you! I'm going to disagree with a few things you said, though I also agree with a number of them. I don't really care what word they use, rebuild, retool, re-whatever, as long as the results are there. So far the results couldn't have been much worse
The “results” one wants to see in a successful rebuild is a good crop of prospects coming in.

So yeah… the “results” have been great thus far.

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
For a 7 to 10 year rebuild, has there been a successful rebuild in the post salary cap era that has taken that long? Pittsburgh, LA, Washington, Chicago, Winnipeg, Tampa Bay, Toronto, Philly, New Jersey, Colorado, Dallas all took less time than that, and most quite a bit less. SJ, Nashville, Boston, Minny, Anaheim, St. Louis, Detroit, Ottawa all haven't rebuilt yet, though Detroit and Ottawa are starting. Edmonton, Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Buffalo, all have sucked for a while and have been examples of unsuccessful rebuilds. Even the the Islanders under Milbury barely sucked enough to miss the playoffs 7 straight seasons, so my opinion if is it takes you 7 to 10 years to rebuild you're definitely doing it wrong.
7 to 10 years?

Canucks are anywhere from 1 to 4 years into a rebuild… depending on who you listen to.

(the Blobytes say 1 year)

Just some perspective, yes I get that you’re discussing how long theoretically this rebuild should/should-not take

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
I agree that it's better to focus on finding elite players rather than supporting players, I just hope that the salaries of supporting players won't hinder paying those elite players in the future. I figure there's always a way to get out of the contracts so I'm not too concerned overall. A rising salary cap and player movement means it's relatively unlikely it will hurt and if it does it won't be too much.
You started that paragraph with concern about the contracts of vets

… then you went on to address those concerns to your own satisfaction.

It’s very interesting to observe you debating yourself. :lol:

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
The example you gave of the Leafs though - since 2012 they've drafted 5th (Morgan Rielly), 21st (Frederik Gauthier), 8th (William Nylander), 4th (Mitch Marner), 1st (Austin Matthews), 17th (Liljegren) and 29th this year (Rasmus Sandin). The Canucks over that same period have drafted 26th (Gaunce), 9th (Horvat) and 24th (Shinkaruk) in 2013, 6th (Virtanen), 23rd (Boeser), 5th (Juolevi), 5th (Pettersson) and 7th (Hughes). Overall we've had higher picks than they have had, though as you said they did get the lottery luck one season. I'm hopeful our last 3 picks turn out to be very good players, but remember it's taken 3 horrible seasons to get there so we should get something for having to watch the hockey we've had to the past few seasons.
The only reason Rikster brought up the Leaves was to show those vet contracts aren’t a problem

… and you’ve already debated yourself into believing he’s right, remember? :D

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
For me though, the big difference between the Nucks and the Leafs over the past 5 drafts (since Benning started) is we've drafted 34 players while the Leafs have drafted 42. That's a lot more draft picks to play with, and the Leafs have turned them into some good prospects and a deep system that just won them the AHL championship. They should be good for a number of years to follow - and it pains me to say that.
Yet in those “past 5 drafts” Leaves have only drafted 3 proven NHL difference-makers.

(Matthews, Nylander, Marner)

Those extra eight draft picks of which you speak of had nothing to do with those guys.

And the only players from those “past 5 drafts” who played a regular shift in that AHL championship:

Engvall, Timashov, Grundstrom, Brooks, Dermott, and Liljegren.

Liljegren was horrible and Dermott only played 14 games.

Grundstrom was the best of those forwards point-wise and he was only 5th (14 points in 20 games).

Point is: Players from those “past 5 drafts” had next to nothing to do with winning that AHL championship.

But why are we talking about players/prospects on the Leaves/Marlies again?

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
Over the past 13 months or so, since Pettersson was drafted, I've become a lot more hopeful that the team is on the right track, but I do believe that they'll have another bad season this year and Benning may not be around after it. I just don't see ownership sticking with him if he has 4 out of 5 seasons in the bottom 7 of the league.
Wanna bet?

I’m pretty sure that, unlike you, the owners judge the rebuild on the new core Jimmy is assembling.

What on Earth does winning games have to do with the rebuilding process? (that comes later)

Guess what Diehard, teams that win a lot of games aren’t "rebuilding"

… yeahno, a team like dat dere? ... they are "retooling" buddy! :mex:
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Uncle dans leg
CC Legend
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

Post by Uncle dans leg » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:44 pm

Nice write up DH.

The quantity of draft picks by the leafs is impressive admittedly with the 42-34 lead but without that home run lottery win theyre somewhere close to YVR on depth and quality of drafted talent. Its that home run that seperates us. Thats it.
nobody forks...with the jesus

Richardstroker69
MVP
MVP
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:14 am

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

Post by Richardstroker69 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:47 pm

Uncle dans leg wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:44 pm
Nice write up DH.

The quantity of draft picks by the leafs is impressive admittedly with the 42-34 lead but without that home run lottery win theyre somewhere close to YVR on depth and quality of drafted talent. Its that home run that seperates us. Thats it.
Also our later round drafting has been better than the laughs.

User avatar
dangler
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 949
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: Commercial Drive Coffee shop

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

Post by dangler » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:56 pm

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
For a 7 to 10 year rebuild, has there been a successful rebuild in the post salary cap era that has taken that long? Pittsburgh, LA, Washington, Chicago, Winnipeg, Tampa Bay, Toronto, Philly, New Jersey, Colorado, Dallas all took less time than that, and most quite a bit less.
Wpg.,Tor.N.J.. Colo all took ALOT longer than 10 years. Pitts.,LA, and Wash. haven't done rebuilds
Retool Rebuild

User avatar
Uncle dans leg
CC Legend
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

Post by Uncle dans leg » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:58 pm

Richardstroker69 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:47 pm
Uncle dans leg wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:44 pm
Nice write up DH.

The quantity of draft picks by the leafs is impressive admittedly with the 42-34 lead but without that home run lottery win theyre somewhere close to YVR on depth and quality of drafted talent. Its that home run that seperates us. Thats it.
Also our later round drafting has been better than the laughs.
For sure it is. For all the hand wringing early and of late we have to admit Benning seems to be fantastic at picking young talent. Almost rummy at the roxy good...

So crappy contract to eriksson aside....this regime is building a deep and solid pool and it should blossom within the next year or 2....proving Docs clairvoyance beyond a reasonable doubt. (and quit touching yourself doc...im not kissing your ass its called credit where its due)
nobody forks...with the jesus

Richardstroker69
MVP
MVP
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:14 am

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

Post by Richardstroker69 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:12 pm

dangler wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:56 pm
Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
For a 7 to 10 year rebuild, has there been a successful rebuild in the post salary cap era that has taken that long? Pittsburgh, LA, Washington, Chicago, Winnipeg, Tampa Bay, Toronto, Philly, New Jersey, Colorado, Dallas all took less time than that, and most quite a bit less.
Wpg.,Tor.N.J.. Colo all took ALOT longer than 10 years. Pitts.,LA, and Wash. haven't done rebuilds
Everybody gets so hung up on trying to define what a “rebuild” is and media has a boner for Toronto so it’s all about stockpiling draft picks. When it should be all about drafting nhl talent regardless of the number of picks.

Diehard1
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:48 am

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fan

Post by Diehard1 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm
Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
Hey Rikster,

Been a while, hope everything is good with you! I'm going to disagree with a few things you said, though I also agree with a number of them. I don't really care what word they use, rebuild, retool, re-whatever, as long as the results are there. So far the results couldn't have been much worse
The “results” one wants to see in a successful rebuild is a good crop of prospects coming in.

So yeah… the “results” have been great thus far.

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
For a 7 to 10 year rebuild, has there been a successful rebuild in the post salary cap era that has taken that long? Pittsburgh, LA, Washington, Chicago, Winnipeg, Tampa Bay, Toronto, Philly, New Jersey, Colorado, Dallas all took less time than that, and most quite a bit less. SJ, Nashville, Boston, Minny, Anaheim, St. Louis, Detroit, Ottawa all haven't rebuilt yet, though Detroit and Ottawa are starting. Edmonton, Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Buffalo, all have sucked for a while and have been examples of unsuccessful rebuilds. Even the the Islanders under Milbury barely sucked enough to miss the playoffs 7 straight seasons, so my opinion if is it takes you 7 to 10 years to rebuild you're definitely doing it wrong.
7 to 10 years?

Canucks are anywhere from 1 to 4 years into a rebuild… depending on who you listen to.

(the Blobytes say 1 year)

Just some perspective, yes I get that you’re discussing how long theoretically this rebuild should/should-not take

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
I agree that it's better to focus on finding elite players rather than supporting players, I just hope that the salaries of supporting players won't hinder paying those elite players in the future. I figure there's always a way to get out of the contracts so I'm not too concerned overall. A rising salary cap and player movement means it's relatively unlikely it will hurt and if it does it won't be too much.
You started that paragraph with concern about the contracts of vets

… then you went on to address those concerns to your own satisfaction.

It’s very interesting to observe you debating yourself. :lol:

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
The example you gave of the Leafs though - since 2012 they've drafted 5th (Morgan Rielly), 21st (Frederik Gauthier), 8th (William Nylander), 4th (Mitch Marner), 1st (Austin Matthews), 17th (Liljegren) and 29th this year (Rasmus Sandin). The Canucks over that same period have drafted 26th (Gaunce), 9th (Horvat) and 24th (Shinkaruk) in 2013, 6th (Virtanen), 23rd (Boeser), 5th (Juolevi), 5th (Pettersson) and 7th (Hughes). Overall we've had higher picks than they have had, though as you said they did get the lottery luck one season. I'm hopeful our last 3 picks turn out to be very good players, but remember it's taken 3 horrible seasons to get there so we should get something for having to watch the hockey we've had to the past few seasons.
The only reason Rikster brought up the Leaves was to show those vet contracts aren’t a problem

… and you’ve already debated yourself into believing he’s right, remember? :D

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
For me though, the big difference between the Nucks and the Leafs over the past 5 drafts (since Benning started) is we've drafted 34 players while the Leafs have drafted 42. That's a lot more draft picks to play with, and the Leafs have turned them into some good prospects and a deep system that just won them the AHL championship. They should be good for a number of years to follow - and it pains me to say that.
Yet in those “past 5 drafts” Leaves have only drafted 3 proven NHL difference-makers.

(Matthews, Nylander, Marner)

Those extra eight draft picks of which you speak of had nothing to do with those guys.

And the only players from those “past 5 drafts” who played a regular shift in that AHL championship:

Engvall, Timashov, Grundstrom, Brooks, Dermott, and Liljegren.

Liljegren was horrible and Dermott only played 14 games.

Grundstrom was the best of those forwards point-wise and he was only 5th (14 points in 20 games).

Point is: Players from those “past 5 drafts” had next to nothing to do with winning that AHL championship.

But why are we talking about players/prospects on the Leaves/Marlies again?

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
Over the past 13 months or so, since Pettersson was drafted, I've become a lot more hopeful that the team is on the right track, but I do believe that they'll have another bad season this year and Benning may not be around after it. I just don't see ownership sticking with him if he has 4 out of 5 seasons in the bottom 7 of the league.
Wanna bet?

I’m pretty sure that, unlike you, the owners judge the rebuild on the new core Jimmy is assembling.

What on Earth does winning games have to do with the rebuilding process? (that comes later)

Guess what Diehard, teams that win a lot of games aren’t "rebuilding"

… yeahno, a team like dat dere? ... they are "retooling" buddy! :mex:
You and I just will never agree on anything will we? :D On a side note, it sure would be nice to see you start a topic rather than just lurk and try to rip apart the thoughts of others. I’d like to hear you actually put forward own thoughts instead of just re-quoting and responding - burner accounts don’t count. :wink:

My response:

- the 7 to 10 years was a direct response to Rikster saying many experts think a rebuild will take 7 to 10 years. Maybe read the post I was responding to before responding yourself

- I have no idea what you are talking about regarding debating myself. Your thought process is bizarre, I started a thought and expanded on it. It might be new to you but that’s called thinking

- Dermott was very good with the Leafs last year when called up, played 37 games and had 13 points, averaging 16 minutes of ice time. That’s a better point pace than Hutton had 2 years ago when everyone was going gaga over him, and a Dermott did it in almost 4 minutes less per game while being 1 year younger than Hutton was. Not only is he a legitimate prospect, he’s easily in Toronto’s top 6 this season and they are the cup favourite as of now. He was easily a top 4 dman on a team that just won the Calder cup, played 14 playoff games, not 14 total all year as you insinuate. Hard to play for the Marlies when you are playing 37 games for the big club!

- Grundstrom was very good for the Marlies in the playoffs, scoring 14 points in 20 playoff games and playing a very good two way game

- The Liljegren comment is bizarre - he was the highest scoring under 20 dman in the whole AHL last season with 17 points. What does he need to do to be considered decent by you? He’s 6 months older than Quinn Hughes who I think is a hell of a prospect, and a year younger than Juolevi who scored 19 points in an inferior league. Liljegren is the consensus top prospect for the Leafs and a consensus top 25 prospect in the world so if he’s horrible there are a ton of horrible players around.

- I can only assume given the comments on these 3 players you watched exactly 0 Marlies games this year.

As for rebuilding versus retooling, I just said I don’t care what word they use, just what the results are. You don’t seem to understand what I mean by results, so let me explain - it doesn’t have to mean points in the standings, it can mean accelerating the rebuild, as they did with the Burr and Hansen trades - good deals as I said at the time and still say so today. Having a plan and sticking to it usually means good results. By most measures other than getting high picks by sucking a lot the results haven’t been good, and that’s being generous.

Lastly, you mentioned they’ve only been ‘rebuilding’ for 1 to 4 years, then I must ask, what were they doing the other years? If the rebuild has only been going on 1 or 2 years they’ve been losing much longer than that, so what was the plan before ‘rebuilding’ in your estimation? Were they trying to win by ‘retooling?’ Just not sure how you explain the poor seasons if they have only been rebuilding such a short time period.

Diehard1
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:48 am

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

Post by Diehard1 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:01 pm

Uncle dans leg wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:44 pm
Nice write up DH.

The quantity of draft picks by the leafs is impressive admittedly with the 42-34 lead but without that home run lottery win theyre somewhere close to YVR on depth and quality of drafted talent. Its that home run that seperates us. Thats it.
It’s possible you are correct, we just don’t know yet. The Leafs have stars in Matthews, Marner, Reilly and Nylander. We have a star in Boeser (so far, early days) and a potential star in Horvat. I won’t name him a star until he scores at least 60 points, so hopefully this year. We have potential stars in Pettersson and Hughes, but I won’t call them anything other than potential until they play at least a game in the league.

As for the late round picks let’s again look since 2012 for the Leafs:

- Connor Brown, more points in the NHL (70) than anybody we have drafted since then other than Horvat - 6th rounder
- Andreas Johnson, point a game AHLer last year and was a beast in the playoffs with 24 points in 16 games. Likely top 9 forwards on the Leafs this year - 7th rounder

Before that they drafted Garret Sparks in 2011 in the 7th round, who just won them a Calder Cup as a starter.

We have Hutton (5th round), Tryamkin (3rd round, but does a guy who won’t play here count?), Gaudette (5th) and then a bunch of maybes. Forsling counts too I guess, even though he was traded.

The Leafs actually have more productive late round picks than we do in the past 6 years and given Connor Brown in miles ahead of Gaudette it’s not that close. I like to think our picks have more promise for the next few years but that remains to be seen.

Not happy that you and Strangelove are forcing me to defend the Leafs. :evil:

User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

Post by Todd Bersnoozi » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:51 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:17 pm
Realdoc1 is lurking in the shadows... or is he THE SHADOW?? :wow:

Who knows when he will strike...

THE SHADOW KNOWS
He prob the split personality of some1 here (a Jekyll & Hyde/Harvey Dent). :twisted:

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 16619
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

Post by Strangelove » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:27 pm

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm

7 to 10 years?

Canucks are anywhere from 1 to 4 years into a rebuild… depending on who you listen to.

(the Blobytes say 1 year)

Just some perspective, yes I get that you’re discussing how long theoretically this rebuild should/should-not take
- the 7 to 10 years was a direct response to Rikster saying many experts think a rebuild will take 7 to 10 years. Maybe read the post I was responding to before responding yourself
See the bolded in red: SOOOooooooo ironic that you talk about someone not reading the post to which they are responding...

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm
Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
I agree that it's better to focus on finding elite players rather than supporting players, I just hope that the salaries of supporting players won't hinder paying those elite players in the future. I figure there's always a way to get out of the contracts so I'm not too concerned overall. A rising salary cap and player movement means it's relatively unlikely it will hurt and if it does it won't be too much.
You started that paragraph with concern about the contracts of vets

… then you went on to address those concerns to your own satisfaction.

It’s very interesting to observe you debating yourself. :lol:
- I have no idea what you are talking about regarding debating myself. Your thought process is bizarre, I started a thought and expanded on it. It might be new to you but that’s called thinking
Nope, what is “bizarre” is you raising a concern (pink) and 2 sentences later alleviating said concern (blue). Image

I laughed, but seriously what is the point of a paragraph like that in a debate.

And why can't you grasp what I was laughing about...

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm
Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
For me though, the big difference between the Nucks and the Leafs over the past 5 drafts (since Benning started) is we've drafted 34 players while the Leafs have drafted 42. That's a lot more draft picks to play with, and the Leafs have turned them into some good prospects and a deep system that just won them the AHL championship.
Yet in those “past 5 drafts” Leaves have only drafted 3 proven NHL difference-makers.

(Matthews, Nylander, Marner)

Those extra eight draft picks of which you speak of had nothing to do with those guys.

And the only players from those “past 5 drafts” who played a regular shift in that AHL championship:

Engvall, Timashov, Grundstrom, Brooks, Dermott, and Liljegren.

Liljegren was horrible and Dermott only played 14 games.

Grundstrom was the best of those forwards point-wise and he was only 5th (14 points in 20 games).

Point is: Players from those “past 5 drafts” had next to nothing to do with winning that AHL championship.

But why are we talking about players/prospects on the Leaves/Marlies again?
- Dermott was very good with the Leafs last year when called up, played 37 games and had 13 points, averaging 16 minutes of ice time. That’s a better point pace than Hutton had 2 years ago when everyone was going gaga over him, and a Dermott did it in almost 4 minutes less per game while being 1 year younger than Hutton was. Not only is he a legitimate prospect, he’s easily in Toronto’s top 6 this season and they are the cup favourite as of now. He was easily a top 4 dman on a team that just won the Calder cup, played 14 playoff games, not 14 total all year as you insinuate. Hard to play for the Marlies when you are playing 37 games for the big club!
Clearly there is no excuse for you missing my 2 bolded sentences above.

Clearly I was responding to your bolded in green.

Clearly (to everyone but you) I was addressing the extent Leaves of the “past 5 drafts” helped in winning that AHL championship.

Clearly (to everyone but you) I was talking about Dermott playing in only 14 of those 20 playoff games.

Clearly (to everyone but you) I was not “insinuating” anything.

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm
Grundstrom was the best of those forwards point-wise and he was only 5th (14 points in 20 games).
- Grundstrom was very good for the Marlies in the playoffs, scoring 14 points in 20 playoff games and playing a very good two way game
How interesting that you suddenly remember we were talking about "in the playoffs". :scowl:

Grundstrom put up a mere 14 points in 20 games while playing on the top line with Johnsson who put up 24 points in 16 games.

Any slug could do the same...

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm
Liljegren was horrible and Dermott only played 14 games.
- The Liljegren comment is bizarre - he was the highest scoring under 20 dman in the whole AHL last season with 17 points... if he’s horrible there are a ton of horrible players around.
Aaaaaand now you're back to forgetting we were talking about "in the playoffs". :sly:

REMEMBER??

YOU talked about how much "draft picks from the past 5 years" helped the Marlies win the Calder Cup.

I pointed out how wrong you are.

YOU don't follow conversations very well.

Liljegren had zero goals and 4 assists in 20 games in the playoffs and was demoted to the bottom pairing.

Here Liljegren talks about his struggles in the those playoffs:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/des ... xperience/

BTW even the most optimistic Leaves fan will tell you Liljegren is a minimum 1-2 years from the NHL

... so how good could he be?

Yeahno "draft picks from the past 5 years" were more along for the ride than stirring the drink in the Calder Cup run.

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm
Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
I don't really care what word they use, rebuild, retool, re-whatever, as long as the results are there. So far the results couldn't have been much worse
The “results” one wants to see in a successful rebuild is a good crop of prospects coming in.

So yeah… the “results” have been great thus far.
As for rebuilding versus retooling, I just said I don’t care what word they use, just what the results are. You don’t seem to understand what I mean by results, so let me explain - it doesn’t have to mean points in the standings, it can mean accelerating the rebuild, as they did with the Burr and Hansen trades - good deals as I said at the time and still say so today. Having a plan and sticking to it usually means good results. By most measures other than getting high picks by sucking a lot the results haven’t been good, and that’s being generous.
So assembling the best group of youngsters in the history of Canuckdom means nothing to you. :hmmm:

Saaaaay, you're kinda... different... amirite? :mrgreen:

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm
7 to 10 years?

Canucks are anywhere from 1 to 4 years into a rebuild… depending on who you listen to.

(the Blobytes say 1 year)
Lastly, you mentioned they’ve only been ‘rebuilding’ for 1 to 4 years, then I must ask, what were they doing the other years? If the rebuild has only been going on 1 or 2 years they’ve been losing much longer than that, so what was the plan before ‘rebuilding’ in your estimation? Were they trying to win by ‘retooling?’ Just not sure how you explain the poor seasons if they have only been rebuilding such a short time period.
OMG you're a horrible debater. :lol:

You couldn't follow a conversation if your cyberlife depended on it!

Aren't you the guy who just said: "Maybe read the post I was responding to before responding yourself"?

Did I say I think the rebuild has only been going on for "1 or 2 years"?? :crazy:

FOR GOD'S SAKE MAN... I'm not a Blobyte... I'm the Antiblob!

Everyone knows it.

You suck at this...
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

Richardstroker69
MVP
MVP
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:14 am

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

Post by Richardstroker69 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:14 pm

Uncle dans leg wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:44 pm
Nice write up DH.

The quantity of draft picks by the leafs is impressive admittedly with the 42-34 lead but without that home run lottery win theyre somewhere close to YVR on depth and quality of drafted talent. Its that home run that seperates us. Thats it.
The next 2 years will be telling, petterson has the potential to be every bit as good as Mathews, and if he is that’s a huge piece to be able to get at fifth.

Diehard1
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1150
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:48 am

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

Post by Diehard1 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:47 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:27 pm
Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm

7 to 10 years?

Canucks are anywhere from 1 to 4 years into a rebuild… depending on who you listen to.

(the Blobytes say 1 year)

Just some perspective, yes I get that you’re discussing how long theoretically this rebuild should/should-not take
- the 7 to 10 years was a direct response to Rikster saying many experts think a rebuild will take 7 to 10 years. Maybe read the post I was responding to before responding yourself
See the bolded in red: SOOOooooooo ironic that you talk about someone not reading the post to which they are responding...

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm
Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
I agree that it's better to focus on finding elite players rather than supporting players, I just hope that the salaries of supporting players won't hinder paying those elite players in the future. I figure there's always a way to get out of the contracts so I'm not too concerned overall. A rising salary cap and player movement means it's relatively unlikely it will hurt and if it does it won't be too much.
You started that paragraph with concern about the contracts of vets

… then you went on to address those concerns to your own satisfaction.

It’s very interesting to observe you debating yourself. :lol:
- I have no idea what you are talking about regarding debating myself. Your thought process is bizarre, I started a thought and expanded on it. It might be new to you but that’s called thinking
Nope, what is “bizarre” is you raising a concern (pink) and 2 sentences later alleviating said concern (blue). Image

I laughed, but seriously what is the point of a paragraph like that in a debate.

And why can't you grasp what I was laughing about...

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm
Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
For me though, the big difference between the Nucks and the Leafs over the past 5 drafts (since Benning started) is we've drafted 34 players while the Leafs have drafted 42. That's a lot more draft picks to play with, and the Leafs have turned them into some good prospects and a deep system that just won them the AHL championship.
Yet in those “past 5 drafts” Leaves have only drafted 3 proven NHL difference-makers.

(Matthews, Nylander, Marner)

Those extra eight draft picks of which you speak of had nothing to do with those guys.

And the only players from those “past 5 drafts” who played a regular shift in that AHL championship:

Engvall, Timashov, Grundstrom, Brooks, Dermott, and Liljegren.

Liljegren was horrible and Dermott only played 14 games.

Grundstrom was the best of those forwards point-wise and he was only 5th (14 points in 20 games).

Point is: Players from those “past 5 drafts” had next to nothing to do with winning that AHL championship.

But why are we talking about players/prospects on the Leaves/Marlies again?
- Dermott was very good with the Leafs last year when called up, played 37 games and had 13 points, averaging 16 minutes of ice time. That’s a better point pace than Hutton had 2 years ago when everyone was going gaga over him, and a Dermott did it in almost 4 minutes less per game while being 1 year younger than Hutton was. Not only is he a legitimate prospect, he’s easily in Toronto’s top 6 this season and they are the cup favourite as of now. He was easily a top 4 dman on a team that just won the Calder cup, played 14 playoff games, not 14 total all year as you insinuate. Hard to play for the Marlies when you are playing 37 games for the big club!
Clearly there is no excuse for you missing my 2 bolded sentences above.

Clearly I was responding to your bolded in green.

Clearly (to everyone but you) I was addressing the extent Leaves of the “past 5 drafts” helped in winning that AHL championship.

Clearly (to everyone but you) I was talking about Dermott playing in only 14 of those 20 playoff games.

Clearly (to everyone but you) I was not “insinuating” anything.

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm
Grundstrom was the best of those forwards point-wise and he was only 5th (14 points in 20 games).
- Grundstrom was very good for the Marlies in the playoffs, scoring 14 points in 20 playoff games and playing a very good two way game
How interesting that you suddenly remember we were talking about "in the playoffs". :scowl:

Grundstrom put up a mere 14 points in 20 games while playing on the top line with Johnsson who put up 24 points in 16 games.

Any slug could do the same...

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm
Liljegren was horrible and Dermott only played 14 games.
- The Liljegren comment is bizarre - he was the highest scoring under 20 dman in the whole AHL last season with 17 points... if he’s horrible there are a ton of horrible players around.
Aaaaaand now you're back to forgetting we were talking about "in the playoffs". :sly:

REMEMBER??

YOU talked about how much "draft picks from the past 5 years" helped the Marlies win the Calder Cup.

I pointed out how wrong you are.

YOU don't follow conversations very well.

Liljegren had zero goals and 4 assists in 20 games in the playoffs and was demoted to the bottom pairing.

Here Liljegren talks about his struggles in the those playoffs:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/des ... xperience/

BTW even the most optimistic Leaves fan will tell you Liljegren is a minimum 1-2 years from the NHL

... so how good could he be?

Yeahno "draft picks from the past 5 years" were more along for the ride than stirring the drink in the Calder Cup run.

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm
Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:56 pm
I don't really care what word they use, rebuild, retool, re-whatever, as long as the results are there. So far the results couldn't have been much worse
The “results” one wants to see in a successful rebuild is a good crop of prospects coming in.

So yeah… the “results” have been great thus far.
As for rebuilding versus retooling, I just said I don’t care what word they use, just what the results are. You don’t seem to understand what I mean by results, so let me explain - it doesn’t have to mean points in the standings, it can mean accelerating the rebuild, as they did with the Burr and Hansen trades - good deals as I said at the time and still say so today. Having a plan and sticking to it usually means good results. By most measures other than getting high picks by sucking a lot the results haven’t been good, and that’s being generous.
So assembling the best group of youngsters in the history of Canuckdom means nothing to you. :hmmm:

Saaaaay, you're kinda... different... amirite? :mrgreen:

Diehard1 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:43 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:21 pm
7 to 10 years?

Canucks are anywhere from 1 to 4 years into a rebuild… depending on who you listen to.

(the Blobytes say 1 year)
Lastly, you mentioned they’ve only been ‘rebuilding’ for 1 to 4 years, then I must ask, what were they doing the other years? If the rebuild has only been going on 1 or 2 years they’ve been losing much longer than that, so what was the plan before ‘rebuilding’ in your estimation? Were they trying to win by ‘retooling?’ Just not sure how you explain the poor seasons if they have only been rebuilding such a short time period.
OMG you're a horrible debater. :lol:

You couldn't follow a conversation if your cyberlife depended on it!

Aren't you the guy who just said: "Maybe read the post I was responding to before responding yourself"?

Did I say I think the rebuild has only been going on for "1 or 2 years"?? :crazy:

FOR GOD'S SAKE MAN... I'm not a Blobyte... I'm the Antiblob!

Everyone knows it.

You suck at this...
Wow - where does one even start with you? You must be really fun at parties.

I honestly don’t have time to respond to this right now, hopefully will get to it within the next couple of days. Suffice it to say, I’ve never seen anybody miss the forest for the trees as much as you - take one tiny detail in a phrase and make the whole phrase about that, rather than actually discussing the main point. It’s spectacular to watch how much you twist things to say what you want them to while missing the point entirely.

Don’t worry, I’ve been doing this debating thing longer than you have, and as I said you’ve yet to ever give your own, original thoughts on the team so somebody else can discuss them. Given it’s never happened I don’t see that changing now, guess you missed that part too.

As for the whole sucking at debating comment, hard to debate somebody who keeps changing the goalposts. I realized you disliked the ‘nailing jello to the wall’ comment but it’s so fitting and given how you’ve attacked my posts since I said it I guess it really hit home. I didn’t realize you were so sensitive :wink:

User avatar
5thhorseman
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

Post by 5thhorseman » Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:33 am

Plus, he`s a Cody Franson lover, so there`s that.

User avatar
rikster
MVP
MVP
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:41 am

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

Post by rikster » Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:08 am

Don’t worry, I’ve been doing this debating thing longer than you have, and as I said you’ve yet to ever give your own, original thoughts on the team so somebody else can discuss them. Given it’s never happened I don’t see that changing now, guess you missed that part too.
Hey DieHard, always good to see you posting...

Have a great summer!

Take care...

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 16619
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: the paranoia of the canuck fanbase

Post by Strangelove » Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:34 pm

Diehard1 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:47 pm
Wow - where does one even start with you? You must be really fun at parties.
Actually I am lots of fun at parties. Image

It's funny you would say that because that is exactly how I see you!

We're opposites you and I.

Hand to God, I see you as a constipated preppy who flashes plastic smiles but who is inwardly miserable.

And, as is the case with most preppies, you're not half as smart as you think you are.

But we should get back to the debate at hand...

Diehard1 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:47 pm
I honestly don’t have time to respond to this right now, hopefully will get to it within the next couple of days.
Promise? 8-)

Cuz yeah, it wouldn't be the first time you bailed on a debate brah...

Diehard1 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:47 pm
Suffice it to say, I’ve never seen anybody miss the forest for the trees as much as you
That's odd considering that very idiom is constantly used by the antiblobs to describe the blobytes (folks such as yourself).

Diehard1 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:47 pm
- take one tiny detail in a phrase and make the whole phrase about that, rather than actually discussing the main point.
That's exactly the kind of lame response one expects to get from a preppy who just lost a debate.

In reality, the "main point" of your last few posts has indeed been about using your Leaves

... as an example of how extra (late) draft picks (1.6 per year in this case) are essential to a rebuild.

In reality I destroyed your "main point". Image

Diehard1 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:47 pm
Don’t worry, I’ve been doing this debating thing longer than you have
Oh really. :roll:

Ever won one? :mex:

Diehard1 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:47 pm
, and as I said you’ve yet to ever give your own, original thoughts on the team so somebody else can discuss them. Given it’s never happened I don’t see that changing now, guess you missed that part too.
Yup, you're odd alright, most would say The Great Strangelove is the most outspoken opinionated asshole is Canuck messageboard history...

Diehard1 wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:47 pm
As for the whole sucking at debating comment, hard to debate somebody who keeps changing the goalposts. I realized you disliked the ‘nailing jello to the wall’ comment but it’s so fitting and given how you’ve attacked my posts since I said it I guess it really hit home. I didn’t realize you were so sensitive :wink:
^ Nice fantasy.

First of all, it's next to impossible to get under the skin of The Great Strangelove.

Secondly, it would take much more than a silly phrase to do so.

Thirdly, I've been crushing you for a lot longer than that (actually since you first came out as a whining blobyte)

Fourthly, I remember the phrase being used recently, but in my memory banks it was by Blob himself. (honestly)

Fifthly, I most certainly have not "changed the goalposts".

(looking forward to your explanation on that... "within the next couple of days") :scowl:


PRO TIP: If you're ever to have a hope of winning a debate, you're gonna hafta start dealing in facts rather than fantasy.
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

Post Reply