Arnott

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: Arnott

Postby RoyalDude » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:32 am

CaptainTrev wrote:And it's not like we've got a bunch of prospects kicking in the door. Whose path, exactly, would Arnott/Doan be blocking at this point?



Well, we can say that every year can't we? Eventually we are going to have to roll with them. Let them get some hours in, gain that valuable experience in which in the end we are the benefactors. The Arnott route is just the same old safe route that really doesn't make your team better. There is something to be said about having a presence of youthful enthusiasm in the line-up, like when Bieksa, Kesler and Burrows were buzzsawing around the ice when Naslund and Bertuzzi were running the show here.

But according to you guys, ya don't mind Gillis continuing on after 5 drafts and having zero representation from kids he has drafted in the starting roster come next season. Worst in the league in this category, btw.

But hey lets play it safe....what I don't get, with Vancouver having the worst travel schedule in the league and a team who notoriously battles the injury bug which is most likely due to hours spent cramped up on planes and in airports and hotels...why are we filling the team with old guys who take away valuable time away from the kids? Ya know there will be a lot of times where you will be saying "where is Doan, where is Arnott". It's because they are coasting/resting due to body maintenance from the Canuck grind. Why did Boston beat us? we were beaten down, and they were young and healthy not to mention having a nice geographical location when it comes to travel. The Canucks don't have that luxury so why are we filling the team with old guys, ass backwards if you ask me.

Anyhow, we can say that every year regarding the kids, "they are not ready"? When are they ever ready? Never. We have to throw them to the wolves otherwise why bother drafting? Teams have to evolve every year, signing weathered journeyman every year has been the Calgary Flames model since forever, another not so friendly rookie environment, in the end it gets ya nowhere.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4302
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Arnott

Postby the Dogsalmon » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:43 am

RoyalDude wrote:
CaptainTrev wrote:And it's not like we've got a bunch of prospects kicking in the door. Whose path, exactly, would Arnott/Doan be blocking at this point?



Well, we can say that every year can't we? Eventually we are going to have to roll with them. Let them get some hours in, gain that valuable experience in which in the end we are the benefactors. The Arnott route is just the same old safe route that really doesn't make your team better. There is something to be said about having a presence of youthful enthusiasm in the line-up, like when Bieksa, Kesler and Burrows were buzzsawing around the ice when Naslund and Bertuzzi were running the show here.

But according to you guys, ya don't mind Gillis continuing on after 5 drafts and having zero representation from kids he has drafted in the starting roster come next season. Worst in the league in this category, btw.

But hey lets play it safe....what I don't get, with Vancouver having the worst travel schedule in the league and a team who notoriously battles the injury bug which is most likely due to hours spent cramped up on planes and in airports and hotels...why are we filling the team with old guys who take away valuable time away from the kids? Ya know there will be a lot of times where you will be saying "where is Doan, where is Arnott". It's because they are coasting/resting due to body maintenance from the Canuck grind. Why did Boston beat us? we were beaten down, and they were young and healthy not to mention having a nice geographical location when it comes to travel. The Canucks don't have that luxury so why are we filling the team with old guys, ass backwards if you ask me.

Anyhow, we can say that every year regarding the kids, "they are not ready"? When are they ever ready? Never. We have to throw them to the wolves otherwise why bother drafting? Teams have to evolve every year, signing weathered journeyman every year has been the Calgary Flames model since forever, another not so friendly rookie environment, in the end it gets ya nowhere.




BING fucking GO!!!
User avatar
the Dogsalmon
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:12 am
Location: in the ainus

Re: Arnott

Postby coco_canuck » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:51 am

RoyalDude wrote:Well, we can say that every year can't we? Eventually we are going to have to roll with them. Let them get some hours in, gain that valuable experience in which in the end we are the benefactors. The Arnott route is just the same old safe route that really doesn't make your team better. There is something to be said about having a presence of youthful enthusiasm in the line-up, like when Bieksa, Kesler and Burrows were buzzsawing around the ice when Naslund and Bertuzzi were running the show here.


The only year all those guys played on the same team, the Canucks missed the playoffs.

Bieka, Kesler and Burrows got some experience, but other than Kesler, neither Bieksa nor Burrows played the full year with the Canucks.

RoyalDude wrote:Anyhow, we can say that every year regarding the kids, "they are not ready"? When are they ever ready? Never. We have to throw them to the wolves otherwise why bother drafting? Teams have to evolve every year, signing weathered journeyman every year has been the Calgary Flames model since forever, another not so friendly rookie environment, in the end it gets ya nowhere


They have to be adequately ready to play.

Just throwing players to the wolves doesn't work if they're not up to the fight.

I'm not sold on what Arnott has left in the tank, but on a reasonable 1 year deal, he'd be adequate, veteran insurance if he can keep the pace on this team.

Last year Sturm was brought in as a veteran project, and as soon as they realized he couldn't do much for this team, he was shipped out.

The Sturms and Arnotts are very expendable if they don't fit properly, or if a young player can win a job.

For the most part, rookies go through ups and downs, and usually fade towards the end of the year as the grind of the NHL, and the playoffs really wear down youngsters. This is precisely why a team needs veteran depth, even if they're planning on bringing young players along.

So far, Gillis' drafting hasn't produced enough dividends, but Hodgson became a regular, and the book hasn't closed on the rest of this system.

Also, Gillis has been on record saying Connauton, Corrado, Schroeder, and Jensen will be given very long looks in camp.

If those guys show enough in camp, they'll make the team. But if they don't, I really do not understand why they should be rushed and given spots on a top team in the NHL.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Arnott

Postby wienerdog » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:56 am

coco_canuck wrote:
RoyalDude wrote:Well, we can say that every year can't we? Eventually we are going to have to roll with them. Let them get some hours in, gain that valuable experience in which in the end we are the benefactors. The Arnott route is just the same old safe route that really doesn't make your team better. There is something to be said about having a presence of youthful enthusiasm in the line-up, like when Bieksa, Kesler and Burrows were buzzsawing around the ice when Naslund and Bertuzzi were running the show here.


The only year all those guys played on the same team, the Canucks missed the playoffs.

Bieka, Kesler and Burrows got some experience, but other than Kesler, neither Bieksa nor Burrows played the full year with the Canucks.

RoyalDude wrote:Anyhow, we can say that every year regarding the kids, "they are not ready"? When are they ever ready? Never. We have to throw them to the wolves otherwise why bother drafting? Teams have to evolve every year, signing weathered journeyman every year has been the Calgary Flames model since forever, another not so friendly rookie environment, in the end it gets ya nowhere


They have to be adequately ready to play.

Just throwing players to the wolves doesn't work if they're not up to the fight.

I'm not sold on what Arnott has left in the tank, but on a reasonable 1 year deal, he'd be adequate, veteran insurance if he can keep the pace on this team.

Last year Sturm was brought in as a veteran project, and as soon as they realized he couldn't do much for this team, he was shipped out.

The Sturms and Arnotts are very expendable if they don't fit properly, or if a young player can win a job.

For the most part, rookies go through ups and downs, and usually fade towards the end of the year as the grind of the NHL, and the playoffs really wear down youngsters. This is precisely why a team needs veteran depth, even if they're planning on bringing young players along.

So far, Gillis' drafting hasn't produced enough dividends, but Hodgson became a regular, and the book hasn't closed on the rest of this system.

Also, Gillis has been on record saying Connauton, Corrado, Schroeder, and Jensen will be given very long looks in camp.

If those guys show enough in camp, they'll make the team. But if they don't, I really do not understand why they should be rushed and given spots on a top team in the NHL.


BING fucking GO this.
wienerdog
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: Arnott

Postby CaptainTrev » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:01 am

RoyalDude wrote:Well, we can say that every year can't we? Eventually we are going to have to roll with them. Let them get some hours in, gain that valuable experience in which in the end we are the benefactors. The Arnott route is just the same old safe route that really doesn't make your team better. There is something to be said about having a presence of youthful enthusiasm in the line-up, like when Bieksa, Kesler and Burrows were buzzsawing around the ice when Naslund and Bertuzzi were running the show here.


Agreed, but IMO this season is the first in which MG should be taking heat over it if none his prospects can make the team, or at least be first in line as legitimate injury replacements. And I don't think Arnott or Doan would be permanent or insurmountable obstacles to that.

But according to you guys, ya don't mind Gillis continuing on after 5 drafts and having zero representation from kids he has drafted in the starting roster come next season. Worst in the league in this category, btw.


Between Hodgson/Kassian and Tanev, this is a technicality, and you know it. As I'm sure has been discussed ad naseum elsewhere on this board.

Anyhow, we can say that every year regarding the kids, "they are not ready"? When are they ever ready? Never. We have to throw them to the wolves otherwise why bother drafting? Teams have to evolve every year, signing weathered journeyman every year has been the Calgary Flames model since forever, another not so friendly rookie environment, in the end it gets ya nowhere.

Can't argue with ya there, I sure as hell don't want the Canucks to be more like the Flames. But do we know for a fact that they blocked the path of their own draft picks with guys like Amonte, Friesen, Nolan etc? Or were their prospects just not good enough to outplay those scrubs when given the opportunity? Remember that Sutter used a lot of his higher picks on limited-upside kids like Pelech, Chucko, Prust, Ramholt and Wahl, then expected them to push for spots. He drafted a bunch of grinders and when it came time for them to try to out-grind the vets, the results were predictable.

Again, up to this point I don't believe that MG and AV deserve to take too much heat over failing to create a development-friendly environment, but this season and next will be very telling. I'm on the fence at this point, but if 2013-14 rolls around and Kassian+Schroeder (or some other combination of young guys) hasn't pushed out the likes of Raymond, Ebbett, Malhotra, etc then I will be right beside you in the lynch mob.

But for now Arnott and/or Doan could fill a pretty big need on a contending team. That's good enough for me.
Last edited by CaptainTrev on Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Perhaps there is no moral to this story."

"Exactly! It's just a bunch of stuff that happened."
User avatar
CaptainTrev
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: Arnott

Postby CaptainTrev » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:07 am

coco_canuck wrote:I'm not sold on what Arnott has left in the tank, but on a reasonable 1 year deal, he'd be adequate, veteran insurance if he can keep the pace on this team.

Last year Sturm was brought in as a veteran project, and as soon as they realized he couldn't do much for this team, he was shipped out.



This.

Maybe I'm guilty of drinking the kool-aid, but I have faith that MG and AV would be open to the possibility of one of the kids making Arnott expendable at some point during the year. Or at the very least, bumping him down the depth chart.

I think they may have learned their lesson about making promises to veteran free agents after the M.Schneider fiasco.
"Perhaps there is no moral to this story."

"Exactly! It's just a bunch of stuff that happened."
User avatar
CaptainTrev
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: Arnott

Postby coco_canuck » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:25 am

CaptainTrev wrote:Maybe I'm guilty of drinking the kool-aid, but I have faith that MG and AV would be open to the possibility of one of the kids making Arnott expendable at some point during the year. Or at the very least, bumping him down the depth chart.


You're only drinking "kool-aid" if you accept RD's smear that anyone who disagrees with him over Gillis is akin to a Jim Jones devotee.

Last year, both Tanev and Hodgson broke camp with the team, and they gave Jensen a long, hard look. This off-season, Gillis has pledged that the team would be getting "bigger, faster, younger," and he's talked at length about the opportunities for his prospects at the up coming training camp.

It's fairly evident that a young player who is good enough will make the team, so you wouldn't be taking a leap of faith.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Arnott

Postby CaptainTrev » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:35 am

coco_canuck wrote:You're only drinking "kool-aid" if you accept RD's smear that anyone who disagrees with him over Gillis is akin to a Jim Jones devotee.

Last year, both Tanev and Hodgson broke camp with the team, and they gave Jensen a long, hard look. This off-season, Gillis has pledged that the team would be getting "bigger, faster, younger," and he's talked at length about the opportunities for his prospects at the up coming training camp.

It's fairly evident that a young player who is good enough will make the team, so you wouldn't be taking a leap of faith.


Fair enough, and I can see both sides of the argument even if I'm still in the pro-patience camp. But somehow my first instinct is to roll my eyes when MG talks up middle-of-the-road prospects like Corrado and Connauton. And wastes a (low) pick on Morgan Clark. And throws his former golden boy (and his daddy) under the bus after trading him.
"Perhaps there is no moral to this story."

"Exactly! It's just a bunch of stuff that happened."
User avatar
CaptainTrev
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: Arnott

Postby RoyalDude » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:37 am

coco_canuck wrote: This off-season, Gillis has pledged that the team would be getting "bigger, faster, younger," and he's talked at length about the opportunities for his prospects at the up coming training camp.



That's always the same old tired stock statement delivered by every GM around the league heading into training camp. The proof is in the pudding.

So if we sign Arnott, let us say. Here is our forward group with a healthy Kesler.

The Sedins, Burrows
Booth, Kesler, Higgins
Raymond, Arnott, Hansen
Weise, Malhotra, Lappiere

Edler, Hamhius
Bieksa, Garrison
Tanev, Ballard

Where in that do you see a spot open for a rookie? Raymond is here whether you like it or not, AV loves him, he plays his system to a tee, Gillis likes him, teamates like him, Garrison's homey, he's cheap. Malhotra, the teams favorite son ain't going anywhere. Where do you see it? We just replace Pahlsson with Arnott and Salo with Garrison. Big massive improvement and fresh new look I tell ya. Pretty fucking stale if you ask me.
Last edited by RoyalDude on Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4302
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Arnott

Postby RoyalDude » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:40 am

CaptainTrev wrote:
coco_canuck wrote:You're only drinking "kool-aid" if you accept RD's smear that anyone who disagrees with him over Gillis is akin to a Jim Jones devotee.

Last year, both Tanev and Hodgson broke camp with the team, and they gave Jensen a long, hard look. This off-season, Gillis has pledged that the team would be getting "bigger, faster, younger," and he's talked at length about the opportunities for his prospects at the up coming training camp.

It's fairly evident that a young player who is good enough will make the team, so you wouldn't be taking a leap of faith.


Fair enough, and I can see both sides of the argument even if I'm still in the pro-patience camp. But somehow my first instinct is to roll my eyes when MG talks up middle-of-the-road prospects like Corrado and Connauton. And wastes a (low) pick on Morgan Clark. And throws his former golden boy (and his daddy) under the bus after trading him.


exactly, I mean who the fuck are we kidding, Connauton and Corrado ain't coming anywhere near the Canucks starting line-up next season. Again, same stock statement delivered by Off-Season Mike Gillis. Proof is in the Pudding
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4302
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Arnott

Postby coco_canuck » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:45 am

CaptainTrev wrote:Fair enough, and I can see both sides of the argument even if I'm still in the pro-patience camp. But somehow my first instinct is to roll my eyes when MG talks up middle-of-the-road prospects like Corrado and Connauton. And wastes a (low) pick on Morgan Clark. And throws his former golden boy (and his daddy) under the bus after trading him.


Corrado has been getting rave reviews since he was drafted, and even has many outside the organization impressed. We'll see what he's got in camp, and Gillis even admitted that it's like Corrado needs one more year of seasoning, but he did bemoan the fact that he would have to be sent back to Junior if he didn't make the Canucks.

When Gillis talked about Connauton, he mentions his offensive skills and defensive issues, and he stated that he'd rather give Connauton a look as the 8th D over Gragnani. So you have to look at players relative to their expected roles, and no is looking at these youngsters to come in and QB the power play and eat important minutes as rookies.

Besides, all GM's talk about their prospects glowingly, it's nothing new, regardless of how good or poor they are.

If you count Clark as a wasted low pick, then you have to say the same about the 80-90% of low picks that never make it to the NHL.

As for Hodgson, it was debated to death, but Gillis didn't say anything about Hodgson until Cody's camp began making public comments, expressing dismay that the Canucks would trade him. And as it has been documented, that was a thorny relationship.

Cody may have been the golden boy, but Gillis has to defend his organization when there's misinformation over the team's motives.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Arnott

Postby RoyalDude » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:46 am

IMO, Jensen is NHL ready, he slayed it in his call-up to Chicago, he slayed it in last years training camp, AV loves him. There should be a spot open for him, why bother with the Swedish Elite League, keep him here, the kid is 100% NHL. Schroeder took massive steps in the final half of the season, the kid is ready and there is no reason Kassian should not be playing up here, he is the classic case of 'Throw him to the wolves'. Those 3 kids should be on the team next season, bottom line.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4302
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Arnott

Postby CaptainTrev » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:49 am

RoyalDude wrote:So if we sign Arnott, let us say. Here is our forward group with a healthy Kesler.

The Sedins, Burrows
Booth, Kesler, Higgins
Raymond, Arnott, Hansen
Weise, Malhotra, Lappiere

Edler, Hamhius
Bieksa, Garrison
Tanev, Ballard

Where in that do you see a spot open for a rookie? Raymond is here whether you like it or not, AV loves him, Gillis likes him, teamates like him. Malhotra, the teams favorite son ain't going anywhere. Where do you see it? We just replace Pahlsson with Arnott and Salo with Garrison. Big massive improvement and fresh new look I tell ya. Pretty fucking stale if you ask me.


I guess that's where the difference of opinion lies.

I believe that AV's patience is almost worn out, and if he has a choice Raymond will be on a short leash this year. That's a potential opening for a guy like Schroeder or maybe Jensen, with the possibility of moving up and down the top 9. At the very least, Ebbett's spot as the 13th forward should be up for grabs.

It's not a huge stretch to imagine Kassian making Weise (or Malhotra if Lapierre centres the 4th line) expendable, again with the possibility of moving up and down the lineup.

If Connauton lives up to the moderate hype he is getting this offseason, AV likely won't hesitate to let him take Ballard's place.

Factor in the inevitable injuries and I see some opportunities there for the rooks. Obviously it's on them to perform, and on management to give them a legitimate shot.

coco_canuck wrote:If you count Clark as a wasted low pick, then you have to say the same about the 80-90% of low picks that never make it to the NHL.


Yeah, but I think MG knew it was a total waste even when he made the pick. At least take a shot at someone you think has a chance.
"Perhaps there is no moral to this story."

"Exactly! It's just a bunch of stuff that happened."
User avatar
CaptainTrev
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: Arnott

Postby coco_canuck » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:55 am

RoyalDude wrote:That's always the same old tired stock statement delivered by every GM around the league heading into training camp. The proof is in the pudding.


Since we haven't seen next year's pudding, your assumption holds no weight.

Especially when two rookies made the team last training camp. There was plenty of proof in that pudding.

RoyalDude wrote:So if we sign Arnott, let us say. Here is our forward group with a healthy Kesler.

The Sedins, Burrows
Booth, Kesler, Higgins
Raymond, Arnott, Hansen
Weise, Malhotra, Lappiere

Edler, Hamhius
Bieksa, Garrison
Tanev, Ballard

Where in that do you see a spot open for a rookie? Raymond is here whether you like it or not, AV loves him, he plays his system to a tee, Gillis likes him, teamates like him, Garrison's homey, he's cheap. Malhotra, the teams favorite son ain't going anywhere. Where do you see it? We just replace Pahlsson with Arnott and Salo with Garrison. Big massive improvement and fresh new look I tell ya. Pretty fucking stale if you ask me.


You do know that if training camp starts on time Kesler won't be ready to for the beginning of the season right?

Weise's spot on the team is as tenuous as any rookie's.

Arnott or Raymond could easily end up as the 13th forward.

Also, injuries happen, a lot, so there's a good chance someone else won't be able to start the year on time.

The reason you have depth is to have more competition in camp and insurance in case of injuries.

Now like I said, I'm not sold on Arnott, but bringing someone like him in on a reasonable 1 year deal adds expendable, veteran depth.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Arnott

Postby coco_canuck » Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:59 am

CaptainTrev wrote:Yeah, but I think MG knew it was a total waste even when he made the pick. At least take a shot at someone you think has a chance.


Then why would he draft him?

To appease a part-time goalie coach he canned last summer?

I highly doubt that was the reason.

I'm not defending the pick as a good one, it clearly wasn't, but I don't see how anyone can say Gillis knew it was a total waste when he made the pick. No reasonable person would draft a player they have absolutely no faith in.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests