Value of: Canucks Fire Sale

[ginner classic]

More proof, did you go to any of the games during that sell out streak? I went to plenty and saw the absolute lack of anything in the lower bowl, people with laptops doing work, on their cell phones the entire game etc. People that couldn't possibly care less about the game, not even reacting when we scored.


That sell out streak ended and they talked on the radio about how many of those tickets were bought by corporations, and given to fans, no that has ended and so did the sell out streak, isn't that kind of proof that "real" fans will not show up?

Of course I went.

No. It's not. It is anecdotal evidence that the Canucks are catering to a fickle audience. It is not proof that this is not a hockey market. It is not proof that the market won't support a rebuild. And even if I was inclined to agree that there are a significant number of corporate buyers, you still fail to provide data for something that would not even support your argument. Which makes your points a bunch of anecdotal, unsupportable tripe.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Of course I went.

No. It's not. It is anecdotal evidence that the Canucks are catering to a fickle audience. It is not proof that this is not a hockey market. It is not proof that the market won't support a rebuild. And even if I was inclined to agree that there are a significant number of corporate buyers, you still fail to provide data for something that would not even support your argument. Which makes your points a bunch of anecdotal, unsupportable tripe.

Alright dude, I was there I saw these people and they have talked about it on local radio, plenty of times.

I'm sure you yourself know more than people on the radio that are connected to the team.

We are not going to agree on this, so lets just agree to disagree?

 

[DS7]

How about look at the veteran leadership on those Pens Hawks Bolts and Kings teams.
The Jarret Stoll's Mike Richards Brad Richards Brian Campbell Marty St Louis Matt Greene Bill Guerin Gary Roberts.

Funny enough a few of those guys played for Edmonton or Toronto.

I whole heartedly agree and we have the Sedins, Burrows, Edler, Tanev to mentor the youth as veteran leadership, plus a drafting guru in GM Benning, nothing i see in our team so far makes me feel like an effort to rebuild, stock picks and 'tank' if you will during the last 2 years will make us end up in a situation like Edmonton.

And has failed with teams like Carolina, Columbus, Florida for many years,. LA did not rebuild either. Unless having two top 10 picks counts as rebuilding, which last time I checked we have three so there ya go.

I love this comparison too, LOL what 1st rounders have we traded for aging players or one dimensional superstars that couldn't help us now? Shinkaruk? The guy we traded him for is producing for us in the NHL, while he toils away in the AHL still. Mcann? We got a young top 4 which we needed more than anything else. I'll give you that Benning has traded away too many picks, fine, but the most detrimental picks he has given up have been 2nd rounders, which statistically speaking amount to a 3rd liner if your lucky, not exactly detrimental if you ask me.

So management gave us bad luck with their decisions LOL how does that work? The Maple Leafs were getting AM no matter what last year, everybody knows that.

I was referencing the leafs trading high picks in general for that aging talent but now that you point to our team in particular, we have essentially done that, Shinkaruk and McCann certainly qualify as 1st rounders traded away for immediate help.

I will say Benning at least has been holding onto his 1st rounders, that is a marked improvement over Nonis/Burke on the leafs.

You can say that in a sense. If each draft pick represents a % chance that X player is an NHL player, trading away picks certainly does mean giving us less luck in terms of hitting a player who can benefit us.

 

[ginner classic]

Alright dude, I was there I saw these people and they have talked about it on local radio, plenty of times.

I'm sure you yourself know more than people on the radio that are connected to the team.

We are not going to agree on this, so lets just agree to disagree?

Quite confident that I know more about hockey than Dave Pratt. They are broadcasters and are not paid based on their sports knowledge. They are entertainers. Their jobs are not correlated with high intelligence...or knowledge about the game and business of hockey.

You can't support your claims with facts. You definitively stated that Vancouver was not a hockey market. You provide no proof. You state the fans would not support a rebuild. Again no proof. Maybe just state that it's your personal opinion....and then you won't have to defend yourself.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

I whole heartedly agree and we have the Sedins, Burrows, Edler, Tanev to mentor the youth as veteran leadership, plus a drafting guru in GM Benning, nothing i see in our team so far makes me feel like an effort to rebuild, stock picks and 'tank' if you will during the last 2 years will make us end up in a situation like Edmonton.



I was referencing the leafs trading high picks in general for that aging talent but now that you point to our team in particular, we have essentially done that, Shinkaruk and McCann certainly qualify as 1st rounders traded away for immediate help.

I will say Benning at least has been holding onto his 1st rounders, that is a marked improvement over Nonis/Burke on the leafs.

You can say that in a sense. If each draft pick represents a % chance that X player is an NHL player, trading away picks certainly does mean giving us less luck in terms of hitting a player who can benefit us.

Mcann was traded for a 24 year old top 4 dman (which was our biggest need), aging talent? Really? Shinkaruk was traded for a 23 year old, again aging?

 

[DS7]

Mcann was traded for a 24 year old top 4 dman (which was our biggest need), aging talent? Really? Shinkaruk was traded for a 23 year old, again aging?

I meant it equated in the sense that we traded 1st rounders (or the value of a 1st rounder) away for immediate help.

Guds and Grandlund are not aging veterans, but they essentially represent trading away tomorrow's higher ceiling for today's higher floor. Which isn't the direction i think we need to go in.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Quite confident that I know more about hockey than Dave Pratt. They are broadcasters and are not paid based on their sports knowledge. They are entertainers. Their jobs are not correlated with high intelligence...or knowledge about the game and business of hockey.

You can't support your claims with facts. You definitively stated that Vancouver was not a hockey market. You provide no proof. You state the fans would not support a rebuild. Again no proof. Maybe just state that it's your personal opinion....and then you won't have to defend yourself.

What about Tony Gallagher? IMac? Etc. People that have been following this team for years? Bmac, Dony Taylor, that's who I was referencing.

Oh and actual proof again look at this team during the late 80's when we averaged under 11,000 per game. I was actually wrong about the late 90's I'll concede that.

Proof is right here:

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=8756

 

[Jumptheshark]

So the Canucks got lucky and somehow came away with 4 wins to start the season. But now reality is taking over FAST. Time to trade some assets before theres nothing left to gain from a rebuild or a retool on the fly. IMO its time to blow this thing out of the sky and start over

Hansen to Washington for a 1st/Vrana and 5th round pick

Virtanen to Florida for a 3rd round pick and 4th round pick

Edler to Ottawa for a 1st (2017) and a 2nd in 2018

Miller to LA for a 2nd round pick

Would hate to see Hansen traded but i think it would be best for the team moving fwd. Benning is a bad GM at doing any task of a GM except drafting esp outside of top ten picks so I would LOVE to see him loaded up with picks to find guys like Lockwood Gaudette and Tater Olsen

Other suggestions would be appreciated as well as CONSTRUCUTIVE criticism with the above suggestions

Hanson does not get you a first. Why do you trade one of your younger players bits?

It has only been loses. This is a Jan 2017 thread

 

[Horse McHindu]

Guds and Grandlund are not aging veterans, but they essentially represent trading away tomorrow's higher ceiling for today's higher floor. Which isn't the direction i think we need to go in.

What guarantee is there that McCann and Shinkaruk are "tomorrow's higher ceiling?"

What makes you think that Guds and Granlund cannot be a part of "tomorrow's higher ceiling?"

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

I meant it equated in the sense that we traded 1st rounders (or the value of a 1st rounder) away for immediate help.

Guds and Grandlund are not aging veterans, but they essentially represent trading away tomorrow's higher ceiling for today's higher floor. Which isn't the direction i think we need to go in.

Shinkaruk can't even make the NHL and Travis Green who was his coach in Utica said he has major improvements to make in his own end before he can even be and NHLer.

Guds was needed far more than Mcann who could just as likely end up a 3rd line C than what his ceiling is which in my opinion would be a 2nd line C which we already have in guys like Sutter and Horvat.


I'm sorry but trading former first rounders for players that we need who are 24 and under, cannot possibly be considered as trading 1st rounder for aging players.

 

[ginner classic]

What about Tony Gallagher? IMac? Etc. People that have been following this team for years? Bmac, Dony Taylor, that's who I was referencing.

Oh and actual proof again look at this team during the late 80's when we averaged under 11,000 per game. I was actually wrong about the late 90's I'll concede that.

Proof is right here:

http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=8756

Also confident I know more about hockey than Don Taylor and IMac.

Again....late 80's is inaccurate. The team's attendance dipped in the mid 80's. Team attendance took off after the Canucks drafted Linden. You totally miss the context of what was happening during the MID 80's. The team was woefully mismanaged...just like it is now. There was no hope of the team turning it around. We failed to properly rebuild after the cup run and they had traded away a franchise player in Neely for Barry Pederson. Fans lost hope. It was not about on ice performance (see attendance data in the 1970's when the team had the same on ice results as the mid 80's as actual proof). There was no franchise player to give fans hope. When they finally drafted one....things changed dramatically.

That's where we are today. Fans are not going to come back to watch this team attempt to make the playoffs. They won't come back if they do make the playoffs (proof....unsold tickets/attendance during Flames series).

They already lost the fickle fans (that only buy tickets when they win) and (more importantly) have completely alienated the smart hockey fan, that knows beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is almost no chance of winning a cup when you finish mid- table every year. I'll spend money on the team when they hire the brightest hockey minds, clean out the dross in their scouting department, and provide an entertaining product.

I don't care if they lose. I do care deeply about where they are headed. Right now....the evidence shows that a retool on the fly is just as dangerous at the gate as a complete rebuild (2013-2014 we finished near the bottom of the league and had better attendance then a year later when we made the playoffs....for example).

They have lost the fickle fan. They have lost the base. They are tone deaf and they are going to get kicked right in the junk on gate receipts this year while avoiding the big scary rebuild.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Also confident I know more about hockey than Don Taylor and IMac.

Again....late 80's is inaccurate. The team's attendance dipped in the mid 80's. Team attendance took off after the Canucks drafted Linden. You totally miss the context of what was happening during the MID 80's. The team was woefully mismanaged...just like it is now. There was no hope of the team turning it around. We failed to properly rebuild after the cup run and they had traded away a franchise player in Neely for Barry Pederson. Fans lost hope. It was not about on ice performance (see attendance data in the 1970's when the team had the same on ice results as the mid 80's as actual proof). There was no franchise player to give fans hope. When they finally drafted one....things changed dramatically.

That's where we are today. Fans are not going to come back to watch this team attempt to make the playoffs. They won't come back if they do make the playoffs (proof....unsold tickets/attendance during Flames series).

They already lost the fickle fans (that only buy tickets when they win) and (more importantly) have completely alienated the smart hockey fan, that knows beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is almost no chance of winning a cup when you finish mid- table every year. I'll spend money on the team when they hire the brightest hockey minds, clean out the dross in their scouting department, and provide an entertaining product.

I don't care if they lose. I do care deeply about where they are headed. Right now....the evidence shows that a retool on the fly is just as dangerous at the gate as a complete rebuild (2013-2014 we finished near the bottom of the league and had better attendance then a year later when we made the playoffs....for example).

They have lost the fickle fan. They have lost the base. They are tone deaf and they are going to get kicked right in the junk on gate receipts this year while avoiding the big scary rebuild.

How so, are you a scout? Where is your proof for this? LOL because you disagree?


I can see your points, they are valid, but we have three young players right now that were top 10 draft picks, we have a solid young blue line, for the most part, the only thing that we are really missing is someone to replace Hank and Daniel, which is no gurantee that we get if we decided to rebuild.

Also the biggest barrier and I think you'll agree with me on this is our ownership, they will NEVER let a rebuild happen, far too greedy and only interested in making money.

 

[Jet Walters]

Who would add in a Griffin Reinhart for Jannik Hansen deal between the Oilers and Canucks?

Also, would a RNH for Hansen/Edler package be reasonable.

I know how you left coasters like your homegrown talent, so two BC boys in RNH and Reinhart might draw some interest.

 

[ginner classic]

How so, are you a scout? Where is your proof for this? LOL because you disagree?


I can see your points, they are valid, but we have three young players right now that were top 10 draft picks, we have a solid young blue line, for the most part, the only thing that we are really missing is someone to replace Hank and Daniel, which is no gurantee that we get if we decided to rebuild.

Also the biggest barrier and I think you'll agree with me on this is our ownership, they will NEVER let a rebuild happen, far too greedy and only interested in making money.

I agree ownership is the biggest barrier. I disagree about never. The team can't avoid gravity and if they ever do some actual research I think they will find this market (the hardcore base) is begging for a rebuild and has been since the San Jose exit.

Top 10 picks are not the same as top 3 picks. Look at the franchise impact of drafting Trevor Linden...all of his production...all of the subsequent trades and all of their production. It's unbelievable. How about the Sedins? Top 3 picks. Massive long term impact.

 

[VoidCreature]

I generally agree with this conclusion, but how the OP got there is pretty amusing.

We lost a game, trade everyone!

 

[yvrtojfk]

Who would add in a Griffin Reinhart for Jannik Hansen deal between the Oilers and Canucks?

Also, would a RNH for Hansen/Edler package be reasonable.

I know how you left coasters like your homegrown talent, so two BC boys in RNH and Reinhart might draw some interest.

I would move Edler and Hansen for RNH and a 1st top 3 protected in what's looking to be a weaker draft (although I don't even think that's necessary with the way the team is playing). You couldnt give me Reinhart for free.

Only problem is Edler has an NTC, not sure if he would waive it for Edmonton (not that the team is bad but the living conditions is much different there).

 

[Randy Randerson]

I agree ownership is the biggest barrier. I disagree about never. The team can't avoid gravity and if they ever do some actual research I think they will find this market (the hardcore base) is begging for a rebuild and has been since the San Jose exit.

Top 10 picks are not the same as top 3 picks. Look at the franchise impact of drafting Trevor Linden...all of his production...all of the subsequent trades and all of their production. It's unbelievable. How about the Sedins? Top 3 picks. Massive long term impact.

I agree with that assessment from an outside perspective - if you can get franchise players from unexpected places (like, if Boeser turns into that) then you can avoid the true rebuild, but the most reliable place to find those franchise building blocks is in the top few picks each year. To me it looks like the Canucks current offensive core is about to be on its last legs so there's probably a few bad years coming as part of natural course

To the point that the stadium was empty when the team was bad because of all the corporate seats that didn't get filled, it also means that those seats were paid for and sponsorship deals are typically for at least 3 year terms to mitigate some of that risk.

So even if the box-office sales were to be down for a few years, there's still the corporate and season ticket holder base, plus all of the league-pooled revenues like TV. So I think the team would financially survive, and even with the "hipster" crowd in Van I think the fans would flock back quickly when you guys got your new faces of the franchise in uniform

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

I agree ownership is the biggest barrier. I disagree about never. The team can't avoid gravity and if they ever do some actual research I think they will find this market (the hardcore base) is begging for a rebuild and has been since the San Jose exit.

Top 10 picks are not the same as top 3 picks. Look at the franchise impact of drafting Trevor Linden...all of his production...all of the subsequent trades and all of their production. It's unbelievable. How about the Sedins? Top 3 picks. Massive long term impact.

Yah but plenty of teams have remained competive without having top 3 picks, The kings for example, yes they have doughty, but Kopitar who is their best forward and one of the best players in the league was an 11th overall pick, even the ducks who won a cup, their two best young players were drafted in the 20's. We can build a good team without having a top 3 pick. The other side of that is the Carolina's Columbus's, Florida's, teams that have had countless top 3 picks and still were god awful. Florida is just now starting to reap those rewards.


Brock Boeser looks like a top line forwards and he was drafted 23rd overall.

 

[ginner classic]

I could see Hansen, Larsen, Skille and Miller generating interest at the deadline. No point discussing an Edler trade until after the expansion draft. We can protect him....contenders won't be able to.

 

[ginner classic]

Yah but plenty of teams have remained competive without having top 3 picks, The kings for example, yes they have doughty, but Kopitar who is their best forward and one of the best players in the league was an 11th overall pick, even the ducks who won a cup, their two best young players were drafted in the 20's. We can build a good team without having a top 3 pick.

Not interested in 'competitive'. Not interested in good. Not even a little bit.

Doughty was drafted 2nd overall.

You can't name plenty of recent teams that won a cup without a top 3 pick in their lineup. Feel free to try. Body of evidence is on my side.

 

[Jet Walters]

I would move Edler and Hansen for RNH and a 1st top 3 protected in what's looking to be a weaker draft (although I don't even think that's necessary with the way the team is playing). You couldnt give me Reinhart for free.

Only problem is Edler has an NTC, not sure if he would waive it for Edmonton (not that the team is bad but the living conditions is much different there).

We have a couple of Swedish defensemen in Larsson and Klefbom who might be able to get him to waive.

RNH and a 1st? No way I'd do that. The Canucks would be lucky to get a top 15 OA pick for Edler straight up I think.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Not interested in 'competitive'. Not interested in good. Not even a little bit.

Doughty was drafted 2nd overall.

You can't name plenty of teams that won a cup without a top 3 pick in their lineup. Feel free to try. Body of evidence is on my side.

I can name plenty of teams that have had top 3 picks that haven't done anything with them though. Top 3 is no guarantee. Detroit for example won a cup and went to back to back Stanley cups without a top 3 pick did they not?

 

[Randy Randerson]

I can name plenty of teams that have had top 3 picks that haven't done anything with them though. Top 3 is no guarantee. Detroit for example won a cup and went to back to back Stanley cups without a top 3 pick did they not?

aren't they the only example of that though? It does look much easier to build a core from the top few picks than without them, not saying it can't be done but if you're choosing the path based on results of other teams who have done either, the real rebuild has to look like the better option

If you can get franchise players without those, good on you, but that's super tough to do

As a fan who has suffered through it, I wouldn't suggest the retool-and-try-again method to anyone, it consistently didn't work in Toronto

 

[ginner classic]

I can name plenty of teams that have had top 3 picks that haven't done anything with them though. Top 3 is no guarantee. Detroit for example won a cup and went to back to back Stanley cups without a top 3 pick did they not?

Strawman. I never said top 3 was a guarantee of success.

No Detroit did not win back to back cups without a top 3 pick in their lineup. Steve Yzerman says hi.

 

[ginner classic]

aren't they the only example of that though? It does look much easier to build a core from the top few picks than without them, not saying it can't be done but if you're choosing the path based on results of other teams who have done either, the real rebuild has to look like the better option

If you can get franchise players without those, good on you, but that's super tough to do

As a fan who has suffered through it, I wouldn't suggest the retool-and-try-again method to anyone, it consistently didn't work in Toronto

If you have the best scouts in the league you can find great players. We do not have the best scouts in the league. We still have Delorme on staff. We employ Jim Benning's son. We now let an assistant GM make a pick-by-gut-feel. Our pro scouts are complete idiots.

If you employ the best hockey minds and do a great job of drafting and development and retain as many picks as you can...and make great trades...and make great signings you can extend a successful period while not drafting top 10.

That is not the Vancouver Canucks.