CanucksCorner.com Forums

Aaronp18 wrote: Let's see how things go when they start playing teams within their conference. They play Minnesota Duluth in back-to-backs on Oct 28/29. That'll be a good test to see if ND can hold their #1 ranking and Boeser can maintain his scoring prowess.

So Boeser and UND had their first real tests of the season on the weekend and it looks like they struggled a bit. Dropped both games to Minnesota-Duluth and had their ranking drop to #3.

Boeser was held pointless in both games as well.

Not only were these games against one of the top team in the NCAA but they were also the first games away from ND. Hopefully they just need to adjust the effort level for the stronger opposition as their schedule is much harder than their first 6 games going forward.

This is where losing the experience of Stecher and Caggiula can impact the team the most.

They travel to #13 Minnesota this weekend!

Might be able to see the Minnesota game on Big Ten, hopefully.

Strangelove wrote:

Ronning's Ghost wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

Ronning's Ghost wrote: Could you be more specific ? In particular, who will be on the top two lines ?

What am I... Kreskin?

The cream rises to the top....

You seem so certain that something good is coming down the pipe, I thought you might have some insight into what it will be.

Are you really just pitching blind faith ?

Strangelove wrote:It's not "blind faith", I'm projecting what he's done thus far... into the future.

I think you agreed he has done wonders in the goaltending + defense departments.

Not quite. I said "It is not too hard for someone trying to be optimistic to imagine a great top 4 defence corps and goaltender -- though most of those have yet to prove out." Juolevi and Demko may be great, they may not. But at least there is tangible grounds for hope, there.

Strangelove wrote:Why not believe he will do (is doing) the same in the forward department...

Because in the projected 2-3 years being promoted as the time-frame to bring a re-build on the fly plan to fruition, there are more holes in the starting forward line-up than there are highly talented prospects in the pipeline, 2-3 years is not enough time for drafting and developing to fill those holes, the Canucks do not have the assets to fill them through trade, and in the salary-cap NHL, it is not possible to base championship teams on free agency.

I was able to hang on to the dream that it could all come together for say, 2018, but that was predicated on the supposition that the Sedins might show unusual competitive longevity and still be solid contributors at that time. I have defended that supposition as not unreasonable in that the Sedins are committed to fitness, and their games never depended on being dominant physically. However, it is looking increasingly unlikely that is the way it is going to pan out. As others have pointed out, they have taken far more than their share of punishment over their careers. Not only are they slowing down, the game is speeding up, and soon the gap will be too wide.

This development puts the Canucks in the position of being a couple of highly skilled forwards away from being competitive in the projected 2-3 years. Maybe the reason the ownership/management group wanted to try for a rebuild on the fly is that they believed there remained a small opening in the Sedin window at the end of the decade. Not necessarily utterly foolish, but not looking like genius, either.

Ronning's Ghost wrote:

Strangelove wrote: Why not believe he will do (is doing) the same in the forward department...

Because in the projected 2-3 years being promoted as the time-frame to bring a re-build on the fly plan to fruition, there are more holes in the starting forward line-up than there are highly talented prospects in the pipeline, 2-3 years is not enough time for drafting and developing to fill those holes.

As I pointed out the the other day, 2 years ago the future looked bleak to many here on dee and goal.

A lot can change in 2-3 years!

No one knows how good Sven, Markus, and Jake will be in 2-3 years.

Hell, Boeser could be a top-line superstar in 2-3 years for all we know.

We have young forwards like Lockwood, Zhukenov, Candella, McKenzie, Gaudette

... all performing above their draft positions (there are others who could surprise).

Grenier and Cassels may well become bottom-6 forwards.

Juolevi and possibly Brisebois (looking awsome) and Subban (doing well)

... might *all* make the grade in 2-3 years

... which would add to our stable of fine young defensmen

... which might force a trade of a great young dee for a great young forward scenario.

And we have noted "draft guru" James E. Benning yet to make his 2017/18/19 selections.

Not sure what to tell you Ghost, you seem to be demanding to know exactly which players will rise to the top.

I advice you to just sit back and enjoy the ride.

JEB is doing a great job of rebuilding thus far, no reason to believe that won't continue.

Also, you seem to have given up completely on Sedins being a factor 2-3 years from now.

That's your right, but don't forget their are other veterans who may still be contributing.

(or may be traded for young forwards)

Whatever, this team will have a completely different complexion 2-3 years from now, hang in there bro.

Strangelove wrote: Also, you seem to have given up completely on Sedins being a factor 2-3 years from now.

That's your right, but don't forget their are other veterans who may still be contributing.

(or may be traded for young forwards)

Whatever, this team will have a completely different complexion 2-3 years from now, hang in there bro.

Doc, after seeing what we have seen so far this season, the Sedins do not look like players that are going to be effective contributors beyond their current contracts. They just don't have the speed. If they are in a 3rd line role, then maybe, but that means we had better have a helluva fourth line that can be counted on to play like a traditional 3rd checking line, or our 2nd line needs to be able to match up against the top line through 200 feet.

You're 2-3 years from now philosophy is spot on. But right now I think the message we are getting is a bit mixed (from the team, not from you). There is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade and pulling the plug on things. Admitting that the current roster is not good enough to make the playoffs without some serious fall off from other teams is a strategy that works to better improve the state of things 2-3 years from now.

Is Miller's value higher right now than it has every been since he donned the Orca? Yes. He's playing great AND injuries around the league have have probably more than doubled his value with certain teams (one in particular).

Will Edler and/or Tanev start to bring diminishing returns after this season as they get older? Edler almost certainly. Will their value between now and the trade deadline change significantly? Barring significant injury, probably not.

Moving any of those guys cannot be considered under the current mantra of management.

Benning has done a good job of turning the roster over, but there are still a few key moves to make. He has looked a few "gift horses in the mouth" over the last 2.5 years, right now he is staring down the barrel of another one in Miller and he really can't afford to miss on it.

Lot of good thoughtful comments here. It seems was are actually doing a full re-build while calling it something else. Our Nucks have built from the net out. We are good to go with tending the net. Our D is better than it has been in years. Particularly in terms of potential. This kid Julovi (sp) is going to be a good one. That leaves us with the area that is the easiest to fix....our forwards. I am reckoning on two years for that to happen and us to be really competitive. High draft choices with Benning doing the picks is a good thing. We have Boeser and now we need a center who is number one and another scorer with grit. Hard but not impossible. Much easier with the D and the Net ready for the next decade or so.

Trade values are like the stock market. Changes every day. Edler needs to go as he is a high value chip. Tanev IS going to suffer a serious injury with his style of play and though I like him we should let him go for picks or player of value. If Miller continues his hot play he should go too. However, with this scenario we have taken away some of our strength in net and D. It is the return for these trades that will tell the story and Benning has a mixed record in this. Watching Forsling play for the Hawks is hard to see.

So here it is. The plan if we can call it that. Two years to real respectability if done right. If Benning makes the wrong play we become leaves on the Coast.

damonberryman wrote:Lot of good thoughtful comments here. It seems was are actually doing a full re-build while calling it something else.

It has taken many folks here over a year and a half to figure out something Doc and I have seen all along.

But you're excused, I'm sure they censor your mail.

Topper wrote:

damonberryman wrote:Lot of good thoughtful comments here. It seems was are actually doing a full re-build while calling it something else.

It has taken many folks here over a year and a half to figure out something Doc and I have seen all along.

But you're excused, I'm sure they censor your mail.

I don't see a full on rebuild. In a "rebuild" a team does the following:

1. trades aging players for prospects and picks.
2. acquires draft picks on balance rather than trading them away.
3. avoids signing older players to LT contracts (see Eriksson).
4. gives young players lots of ice time to develop their games.

The Canucks have not done any of those things. Instead we have the ridiculous "playoffs" mantra that no one believes except them.

Zedlee wrote:

Topper wrote:

damonberryman wrote:Lot of good thoughtful comments here. It seems was are actually doing a full re-build while calling it something else.

It has taken many folks here over a year and a half to figure out something Doc and I have seen all along.

But you're excused, I'm sure they censor your mail.

I don't see a full on rebuild. In a "rebuild" a team does the following:

1. trades aging players for prospects and picks.
2. acquires draft picks on balance rather than trading them away.
3. avoids signing older players to LT contracts (see Eriksson).
4. gives young players lots of ice time to develop their games.

The Canucks have not done any of those things. Instead we have the ridiculous "playoffs" mantra that no one believes except them.

Sssssssh, you don't understand this all part of the plan. This was Aqua, Linden and Bennings plan from the begging.

Or maybe it was to have a losing environment, something about not bringing in young guys and having on a bad that loses then they point to Edmonton.

I agree 'Zedlee'.

If ownership has been initiating this kind of approach as many have contended, they're going to have to concede that it's not working and change course. If it's Linden and Benning pursuing the playoff push and ownership has been going along for the ride, heads should roll.

Zedlee wrote:

Topper wrote:

damonberryman wrote:Lot of good thoughtful comments here. It seems was are actually doing a full re-build while calling it something else.

It has taken many folks here over a year and a half to figure out something Doc and I have seen all along.

But you're excused, I'm sure they censor your mail.

I don't see a full on rebuild. In a "rebuild" a team does the following:

1. trades aging players for prospects and picks.
2. acquires draft picks on balance rather than trading them away.
3. avoids signing older players to LT contracts (see Eriksson).
4. gives young players lots of ice time to develop their games.

The Canucks have not done any of those things. Instead we have the ridiculous "playoffs" mantra that no one believes except them.

In a "rebuild" a team does the following:

1. Ships out the old core while bringing along a young core.

HEY IT'S HAPPENING!!

In the meantime, nothing wrong with giving the team a goal: Make the playoffs.

I guess during a rebuild smart teams sign support players to five and six year bloated no trade contracts.

Strangelove wrote: In a "rebuild" a team does the following:

1. Ships out the old core while bringing along a young core.

HEY IT'S HAPPENING!!

In the meantime, nothing wrong with giving the team a goal: Make the playoffs.

What "new core"? 4 of our top-5 scorers pre-date this management group. The "new core" you speak of isn't here yet and the actions of this management group are actively slowing their arrival.

Again, transferring over from a Game Day thread that got a little bit more generalized:

RoyalDude wrote:It's not all on Benning aight, that's just Blobbee talking out of his ass as he refuses to accept that Gillis left this organization in a worser situation than what George W. Bush left the USA for Obama

So I wondered, "How much is still Gillis' fault, and how would we measure that?"

For purposes of making this estimate, I supposed that the GM's primary -- or at least limiting -- resource was salary cap. From there, I used CapFriendly to determine each player's cap hit, and which GM last signed or acquired him.
(I considered that for this analysis, it no longer mattered, for example, that Burke drafted the Sedins, only who decided how much to pay to keep them.)

By that measure, and with a couple of percentage points worth or rounding errors, the current Canucks roster is

Gillis 41%
Benning 59 %

This includes money for Higgins and Luongo to not play for the Canucks.
(Charged against Gillis' influence.)

In terms of number of players, the roster is

Gillis 26%
Benning 74%

This includes Jason Megna, Alex Chaput, and Anton Rodin.
(Allocated as Benning players.)

Of course this analysis does not account for player performance relative to salary cap, or GM success at the drafting table relative to draft position, but it does suggest that this now mostly Benning's team.

My spreadsheet skills are not amazing, so please feel free to double-check my arithmetic. Also, I admit that salary cap is only an approximation of the resources available to a GM; in a team willing to spend to the cap, total number of draft picks, or proportion of picks that turn into useful players, might be limiting factors. So, the answer to "How would we measure that?" is, so far, "crudely", but I look forward to the more sophisticated analyses other posters might develop.

Island Nucklehead wrote:

Strangelove wrote: In a "rebuild" a team does the following:

1. Ships out the old core while bringing along a young core.

HEY IT'S HAPPENING!!

In the meantime, nothing wrong with giving the team a goal: Make the playoffs.

What "new core"? 4 of our top-5 scorers pre-date this management group. The "new core" you speak of isn't here yet and the actions of this management group are actively slowing their arrival.

Try to focus on 2-3 years from now...