Is the Canuck Cupboard THAT Bare?

[dbr]

It goes to show that trading your 1st and second round picks can work, if you get real talent back, instead of rentals. But, the draft also does a great job of penalizing successful teams by giving them crap picks.

I'd like to see the Canucks trade in the other direction. Giving up some of our 2nd liners at the deadline for some juicy 1st rounders (only because imho, we have too many 2nd liners this season if Sammy/Higgins/Sturm/MayRay are all healthy). We might need to throw in a prospect to make these 1st round picks though.

Well for starters, the Canucks are hopefully going to be Stanley Cup contenders heading into the playoffs; secondly they arguably are not going to be defending Stanley Cup champions because they simply did not have enough depth and support across the roster to last four rounds. And you want to trade players away for picks that will hopefully become as good as these players several years from now?

[Madcombinepilot]

Well for starters, the Canucks are hopefully going to be Stanley Cup contenders heading into the playoffs; secondly they arguably are not going to be defending Stanley Cup champions because they simply did not have enough depth and support across the roster to last four rounds. And you want to trade players away for picks that will hopefully become as good as these players several years from now?

I guess if you think that guys like Sturm and Ebbet are going to take you to the promised land, thats your deal.

Me, I am with Tisco. If we could sell a single purpose prospect or a marginal second line player (packaged with a pick) to move up in the draft, I am all in. I we can load the farm full of talent, depth is not an issue. Tanev proved that last palyoffs.

[coco_canuck]

And you want to trade players away for picks that will hopefully become as good as these players several years from now?

Well that's exactly it.

This team needs more depth up front, not less, and trading any of our top 6 capable forwards for a draft pick or prospect doesn't make sense for a team trying to win the cup unless that trade is part of a bigger move that brings another top-notch forward to the team.

[coco_canuck]

I guess if you think that guys like Sturm and Ebbet are going to take you to the promised land, thats your deal.

Unless those guys have big years, they won't garner much more than lower level picks, and how does that help a team that's trying to win the cup?

If they're playing at a level where they can bring back a 1st or 2nd round pick, then aren't they worth keeping if the team is going to make another deep playoff run?

Me, I am with Tisco. If we could sell a single purpose prospect or a marginal second line player (packaged with a pick) to move up in the draft, I am all in. I we can load the farm full of talent, depth is not an issue. Tanev proved that last palyoffs.

Are you talking about making these deals mid-season or at the draft?

I'm not against making trades at the draft because there will be opportunities to replace those players through free-agency and other trades, but stripping this team's assets mid-season for a chance to move up the draft in July doesn't make much sense.

Also, we're talking about forward depth, and last year it was proven we were lacking in that area, so dropping one of Sturm, Higgins, Raymond, Hansen or Samuelsson really makes zero sense unless a deal to bring back another top-notch player is a part of it.

[dbr]

I guess if you think that guys like Sturm and Ebbet are going to take you to the promised land, thats your deal.

Nice straw man.

Tciso mentioned four guys, none of them were Andrew freaking Ebbett (who will be hard-pressed to crack the roster this season, let alone return a 1st round pick at the deadline) and three of them are more valuable assets than Marco Sturm who will either be on our third or fourth line once everyone is healthy or will actually be contributing at a higher level than a handful of 2nd-3rd line wingers.. in which case yeah, that's a guy you hang onto for the playoffs.

Me, I am with Tisco. If we could sell a single purpose prospect or a marginal second line player (packaged with a pick) to move up in the draft, I am all in.

Why? Do the Canucks simply not have a chance to win in these playoffs? I think most would acknowledge that this team is in its window to win a Cup, unless you disagree I can't conceive of a reason why Mike Gillis should make the Canucks a worse team after the 2012 trade deadline than they are before it.

I we can load the farm full of talent, depth is not an issue. Tanev proved that last palyoffs.

I like Chris Tanev, but what he proved is that occasionally a kid with a bright future can come up from the farm and play a depth role without embarrassing themselves.

He was not a major contributor in the 2011 playoffs and barring another huge leap he won't be a major contributor in the 2012 playoffs. Neither will the draft pick we trade an NHL player for under this plan, so unless you've already written off the 2011-12 NHL season I can't understand why this is supposed to make any sense.

[ESQ]

I agree with moving players at the draft to move up, but definitely not during the upcoming season. Like I've said in other threads, the key to this team's success is having a third line of second-liners, and when injuries inevitably hit you (in theory) can keep producing. It also shields you from slumps, like we saw last year - one of the top 3 lines would get wicked-hot at a time, and each of those lines won us games at different points.

One thing I would like to see is a little more room for prospects on the big club. I know Alberts is a depth man, but when you get down to your #8 defenseman I'd rather see Tanev or Sauve get a shot than Alberts. Plus he ain't exactly cheap. I'd say the same about Rome but he is signed to a ridiculously cap-friendly deal, which is what I think you should be paying your #7 dman. I know all about history showing a need for depth, but I'd rather that depth be on the farm than in Alberts. In 41 gp (almost all due to Salo's offseason injury), he averaged just over 15 min toi/g, down from 76 gp in 09/10 - should be replaceable by a prospect or a depth veteran with a better cap hit.

[BladesofSteel]

One thing I would like to see is a little more room for prospects on the big club. I know Alberts is a depth man, but when you get down to your #8 defenseman I'd rather see Tanev or Sauve get a shot than Alberts. Plus he ain't exactly cheap. I'd say the same about Rome but he is signed to a ridiculously cap-friendly deal, which is what I think you should be paying your #7 dman. I know all about history showing a need for depth, but I'd rather that depth be on the farm than in Alberts. In 41 gp (almost all due to Salo's offseason injury), he averaged just over 15 min toi/g, down from 76 gp in 09/10 - should be replaceable by a prospect or a depth veteran with a better cap hit.

I think you're splitting hairs just a little here.

The difference in cap hits b/w Alberts and Sauve/Tanev is negligible, a non issue afaic. Fact is, Alberts brings something few other Canuck blue-liners do, and that's a physical presence. With the history of injuries this club has endured on the back end, having 8 NHL defenseman and several prospects on the farm is as good as one can expect for a competitive team.

I hardly think Gilman will be losing any sleep over Alberts' $1.25 cap hit over Tanev's $900k.

[Linden Is God]

If Fat Quinn played his cards right in that one draft, he would of built a dynasty right there. Insert a young Jagr, Tkachuk and Weight into that 94 lineup and the Rangers would have no chance.

On that note, wasn't Weight part of the Messier deal?

[BladesofSteel]

If Fat Quinn played his cards right in that one draft, he would of built a dynasty right there. Insert a young Jagr, Tkachuk and Weight into that 94 lineup and the Rangers would have no chance.

On that note, wasn't Weight part of the Messier deal?

Nope.

It was The Grate One for Weight straight up.

[Madcombinepilot]

Unless those guys have big years, they won't garner much more than lower level picks, and how does that help a team that's trying to win the cup?

wow. who said anything about straight up due for pick?? I thought we were talking about moving up in the draft. If we packaged a 2nd tier guy and a 4th or a 3rd round pick, that can sometimes move you to a 3rd or a 2nd round pick, on the right team. Anyone who thinks that Raymond, Sturm, Higgins, Ebbet, etc is a 1st line guy (or thinks they will have a season like a 1st line guy) needs to give thier head a shake. We have a plethora of 2 line forwards, as well as a couple good prospects who may (or may not) fill in on the second line. giving up 1 of them to move up in the draft helps make sure that we dont suck down the road.

Also, we're talking about forward depth, and last year it was proven we were lacking in that area, so dropping one of Sturm, Higgins, Raymond, Hansen or Samuelsson really makes zero sense unless a deal to bring back another top-notch player is a part of it.

In regards to this area, yeah, we were hampered by injuries last year, but none of the players we are talking about can step into the Kesler/Henrik shoes that were injured last year. Any time you lose 2 of your top 4 forwards (BOTH top line centers) and 2 of your top 4 D, you will have problems. no team has the depth to recover from that. Last years run happened because of our depth. we had more injuries and used more players than any other team in the playoffs. NO team had more depth than us. we just got unlucky on who got the injuries.

Why? Do the Canucks simply not have a chance to win in these playoffs? I think most would acknowledge that this team is in its window to win a Cup, unless you disagree I can't conceive of a reason why Mike Gillis should make the Canucks a worse team after the 2012 trade deadline than they are before it.

Holy crap do you guys from CDC ever read a lot of words that were never typed!!!
where the hell did this come from?? Its kind of simple. from where I sit, we currently have about 6 guys trying out for 3 2nd line spots. some of those guys will make the team as 3rd line guys. when talking about depth on a team, if too much of your top end talent gets hurt, your mid grade talent simply cant cover for them. thats what happened to us last year. Kesler, Henrik, Raymond, Samuleson, Hamhuis, ETC were all injured, and no amount of 2nd and 3rd line players will get you through that plauge against talent like Boston had. when you have a ton of mid grade talent (that some other teams may want to use to reach thier short term goals) and you could make a trade to move up in the draft so you have a lot of young talent in the system, to ensure that you have a coompetative team in the future, you do it. I am not talking about making the team worse, or not winning in the current window, I am talking about attempting to lengthen the window.

[ClamRussel]

Tciso mentioned four guys, none of them were Andrew freaking Ebbett (who will be hard-pressed to crack the roster this season, let alone return a 1st round pick at the deadline) and three of them are more valuable assets than Marco Sturm who will either be on our third or fourth line once everyone is healthy or will actually be contributing at a higher level than a handful of 2nd-3rd line wingers.. in which case yeah, that's a guy you hang onto for the playoffs.

I have a feeling Ebbett is going to surprise alot of people on this board. Guy was highly sought after by the Canucks and MG is counting on him replacing big minutes in our top 6 w/ the loss of Raymond, Kesler & possibly Samuelsson. He will be given ever opportunity and look for him to make an impact. He's done it before w/ Anaheim and has a good skill set. People are assuming he's going to be Wolf fodder or barely crack the lineup. We shall see...

I we can load the farm full of talent, depth is not an issue. Tanev proved that last palyoffs.

I like Chris Tanev, but what he proved is that occasionally a kid with a bright future can come up from the farm and play a depth role without embarrassing themselves.

He was not a major contributor in the 2011 playoffs and barring another huge leap he won't be a major contributor in the 2012 playoffs. Neither will the draft pick we trade an NHL player for under this plan, so unless you've already written off the 2011-12 NHL season I can't understand why this is supposed to make any sense.

Agreed, people need to temper their Tanev enthusiasm a bit...anyone remember Neil Belland? Fact is, he isn't far removed from tier 2 jr and needs time to develop....he gets discussed like he's a future PP QB but in Manitoba he only had 1g & 9pts and 1a in Van during a combined 68gp....then 3pts in a combined 19gp w/ both clubs during the playoffs. Just saying, like Sauve & Connaughton, some more time on the farm might be a good thing. See how he handles big minutes & PP time.

[ESQ]

I think you're splitting hairs just a little here.

The difference in cap hits b/w Alberts and Sauve/Tanev is negligible, a non issue afaic. Fact is, Alberts brings something few other Canuck blue-liners do, and that's a physical presence. With the history of injuries this club has endured on the back end, having 8 NHL defenseman and several prospects on the farm is as good as one can expect for a competitive team.

I hardly think Gilman will be losing any sleep over Alberts' $1.25 cap hit over Tanev's $900k.

Fair enough, but the main difference that I see between Alberts and Tanev isn't cap hit, its that Tanev doesn't need to clear waivers. So its really Alberts' $1.25 in the press box versus Tanev's 0 when he's not playing, plus the added benefit of giving safe minutes to your young guys with upside.

But I admit, in my mind Alberts' cap hit was more than $1.25 mil, and the way the cap has risen very few teams are going to be at the cap so the added cap space is less important. But the opportunity for young guys to get games is key for me.

[coco_canuck]

NO team had more depth than us. we just got unlucky on who got the injuries.

I don't necessarily disagree with everything that you were saying in that paragraph, but I think our depth ran out, meaning it wasn't good enough.

You can't replace Hank or Kes, but Samy, Raymond, Higgins, and Malhotra were also either slowed by injuries or out of the line-up for much of the time and the most important time.

If we had a couple of other capable top 6 wingers or better performers on the 4th line, maybe it would have been enough to put us over the top against Boston despite all those injuries.

Obviously, we all want another impact forward, but we also need deeper and stronger overall supporting cast. If you can have a long line-up and a 4th line who can play over ten, effective minutes per game, you can keep rolling 4 lines and keep pushing the pace 5 on 5.

How much do you, and the others I've argued with over depth players or enforcers, consider the Canucks style of play when talking about these issues?

The NHL has become a systems league, teams that are most effective play a cohesive team game. The Wings play their puck-possession game and the Pittsburgh Penguins play a smothering and hard-working style that's hard to break down.

The Canucks play an up-tempo puck pressure game that relies on strong defensive play and quick puck movement from the back-end. I'm sure you and others have heard Canucks players talk about playing as "five man units." That's all part of the Canucks system, the d-men and forwards constantly looking to move up the ice and keep the pressure while staying focused on rotations and positional responsibilities.

To be most effective, all 4 lines and 3 D-pairs need to have a mix or combination of speed, smarts, and skills. Vancouver was able to run over Chicago, Nashville and San Jose in large parts of those series because they had a longer line-up and were able to stay on top of teams with their pressure and speed. When those teams had to rely on 1-2 lines, the Canucks consistently rolled at least 3 lines.

It's not only your top players that need to be capable and producing, you need to have a great overall team. The Sharks and Hawks have comparable top talent, but the Canucks depth and style of play was the difference.

[BladesofSteel]

But I admit, in my mind Alberts' cap hit was more than $1.25 mil, and the way the cap has risen very few teams are going to be at the cap so the added cap space is less important. But the opportunity for young guys to get games is key for me.

That's the beauty of the depth that AV has at his disposal. If they're playing a tougher opponent, Alberts will obviously draw in for his presence. If the team loses a puck mover or two, Tanev will continue to make his bones.

Realistically, beyond the top 4 the following players should see ice-time next season:
Ballard
Rome
Alberts
Tanev
Sauve
Sulzer
Connauton

with dark horses Parent and Erixon lurking about as well.

Ya gotta love the depth.

[Madcombinepilot]

If we had a couple of other capable top 6 wingers or better performers on the 4th line, maybe it would have been enough to put us over the top against Boston despite all those injuries.

And just where would they have fit under the cap?? only through luck (unluck??) and amazing cap management did we fit everyone in last year. To expect the same this year would be poor planning.

When it comes to depth players, they almost HAVE to come from the Wolves. We can only have so many players on our active roster, and our roster is full of guys on 1 way contracts. Thats why we ran out of depth last year. Sure you can have 1 or 2 guys as depth players on 1 ways, but true depth will come from the farm. we need more guys on 2 way contracts who play the same system as the moose. Depth comes from guys who all make under a million who you can send up and down with no fear of waivers. we need guys who will play above thier pay grade, guys we can develop. those guys come from the minors and they have potential. some make it, some don't. The more youth with talent we have on the Wolves, the better. When you have guys like Ebbet and Sturm on 1 way contact, you know exactly what they are bringing to the table, ( and potential is not it) and you are hoping they get put on the LTIR to make roster space for other guys. We need to have more Schoeders and Tanevs and Hodgsons down there, and you only get them with draft picks or extremly good junior scouting (something we have been pretty poor at in the past)

I have always talked about systems (see my comments on Mac T as coach). The more guys you have with the talent to play thier role in said system, the more depth you have. you said you want a deeper supporting cast, well, IMO, that means a strong farm team.