smalien wrote:While I might agree after the first 30 games of the season, that a Naslund trade might have merit, trading for another elite D man with a similar salary to Naslund's would not be in the best interest of the club going into the 1st game.
With the number of moves this team has made, there has to be a settling in period to see how they will respond as a new group and to a new system.
I agree with you, to some degree, regarding the "settling in" period. However, if recent history is of any indication, all Stanley Cup finalists/winners have a few things in common:
A) Top notch goaltending.
B) Strong Leadership
C) Another STRENGTH other than just goaltending.......based on recent years, this strength is either derived from.....
i) Having a balanced line-up (i.e. superior 3rd/4th line depth)
ii) Exceptional team defense
As far as 'A' goes, Luongo looks like he fits that bill. We finally may have a top notch goalie. 'B' --> Naslund, Linden, Ohlund, Sedin twins, Cooke, and Mitchell. Although I think we could still improve in the leadership department, I don't think its that bad either. None of these guys have won a cup, but Dave Anderchuck and Rod Brindamour hadn't won cups until recently either.
So - in my opinion, the Canucks have 'A' and 'B' all set. 'C' however, is where they fall apart IMO.
Do the Canucks have an exceptionally sound defensive team? (i.e. like Calgary did last year, the Devils in yesteryear, Minnesota Wild?). No.
Do the Canucks have excellent depth/balance? (i.e. similar to the Oilers, Sabres, Predators). No.
Other than goaltending, a team NEEDS another strength in which their team is built around.....this comes in the form of either exceptional defense, or exceptional depth.
To me, it seems like Nonis tried to go for the latter (depth). By getting guys like Bulis, Pyatt, Chouinard, Mitchell, etc., Nonis was trying to build a more balanced line-up.
Unfortunately however, when you have 6+ guys on the team making over $3 mill, it's almost impossible to create BALANCE/DEPTH
. Therefore, wouldn't it have been better for Nonis to use that money to build a strength? (i.e. defense).
Think of why a team like San Jose went out and traded for Mark Bell (despite the Sharks already being an offensively potent team).
Why would the Ducks go out and trade for Pronger? (despite already having a respectable defense).
The key in today's NHL, is having STRENGTHS. In the cap era, ALL teams will have a weakness of sorts. It's almost unavoidable (unless certain players unexpectedly overachieve). The key to success is building a strength so strong, that it completely outweighs the weakness.
Just my opinion.