Toggle sidebar

Management Thread | 5th Youngest Team in the League Edition

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
4Twenty said:
Agree to disagree.

Surprised folks see a Tampa type organization here given where they’re starting but to each their own.

I’m not going to convince you especially if we can’t even agree on the levels of picks prospects they accrued (conveniently you didn’t include 2012 where they had two firsts and two seconds). It’s a night and day comparison imo and since we can even agree to that I’m content to leave it at that.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Who said we are a tampa like organization?

And leave 2012 out of what? I didnt leave it out of anything.. 12 was vasi with a pick they traded for and the other three were duds.. ok..

What are you trying to convince me of? that they started their path in a better position? Undoubtedly, you don't have to convince me of that I agree.
 
andora said:
Who said we are a tampa like organization?

And leave 2012 out of what? I didnt leave it out of anything.. 12 was vasi with a pick they traded for and the other three were duds.. ok..

What are you trying to convince me of? that they started their path in a better position? Undoubtedly, you don't have to convince me of that I agree.
Click to expand...
I honestly can’t understand why you’re struggling to follow along.


The Canucks have been bad. They have been trading futures futures short cuts for 5+ seasons.

There’s a massive gulf between starting points, success up the retooling point, accrued futures, picks, prospects, cap mgmt etc

You see a Tampa like path. You said this.

The fact you and others keep pointing out the “duds” from the draft shows there is a major disconnect in what we’re talking about.

Maybe they don’t even draft Vasilevski if he’s their only pick?


Yeah. They’re starting from a far worse position than Tampa. And it still took them 5 years from their finals appearance ti their cup win. Being good for as long as they have is because they set the table imo.

Again. I’m content to move on. Agree to disagree. Just thought I’d give your the courtesy of a response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gringo
Gurn said:
I have an idea, let's dump all our bad players and sign good ones.
Any one know of any teams that want all our bad players, and will trade us their good ones in return?
That's all we need right?
Just get rid of
OEL
Myers
Boesser
Poolman
Garland
Pearson

Then find
3rd line center
2 more top 4 D men
2-3 players for penalty killing
a couple of big, scrappy wingers
a couple of scrappy, big d men.
a back up goalie

Get half of that done and be a contender to make the play offs
get all of it done, be a contender to win a couple of rounds.
so freaking easy. Should have had this complete by the beginning of this season.
don't get what's taking so long. :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decade of darkness, goes on.
Game plan hasn't changed
Not likely too either.
Click to expand...
You think rebuilding and ending up like the Avs is easy otherwise?

There is a reason there are only a handful of really good teams. Shits hard regardless of what path you take. Rebuilding does not give you better odds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TryamkinPleaseReturn and racerjoe
4Twenty said:
I honestly can’t understand why you’re struggling to follow along.


The Canucks have been bad. They have been trading futures futures short cuts for 5+ seasons.

There’s a massive gulf between starting points, success up the retooling point, accrued futures, picks, prospects, cap mgmt etc

You see a Tampa like path. You said this.

The fact you and others keep pointing out the “duds” from the draft shows there is a major disconnect in what we’re talking about.

Maybe they don’t even draft Vasilevski if he’s their only pick?


Yeah. They’re starting from a far worse position than Tampa. And it still took them 5 years from their finals appearance ti their cup win. Being good for as long as they have is because they set the table imo.

Again. I’m content to move on. Agree to disagree. Just thought I’d give your the courtesy of a response.
Click to expand...
well thank you for responding..

i'm not following? i get it.. get a bunch of picks and it allows you to take more swings and likely hit more. it gives you more chances to hit on players etc.. i get it. but that is not what i am saying. there isn't a disconnect - i'm not addressing what you are so aloofly representing because i am not debating that.. it's correct 1000 picks gives you better odds at getting good players than 100 picks..

you are taking the 'tampa like path' and adding in all the context of starting points, pick quantity etc.. when i am saying i don't see why we cannot use the same type of strategy or concepts in our trading, whether we have 10 picks or 1000. why we can't move a 3rd for a late 3rd and a 5th, why we can't trade a player and a 4th for a 3rd and a 6th.. shit like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: racerjoe and 4Twenty
racerjoe said:
Like essentially dman listed twice,
Click to expand...
Is Hughes a top 4 defenceman- everybody agrees -yes he is
Is Hughes a big scrappy defence man not he is not.
Therefore top 4 d are not always big and scrappy.
Thus the d part is not over listed.
racerjoe said:
I am going to say there is a very good chance Poolman and Pearson are LTIR
Click to expand...
cool, while you are waving your hand to make problems disappear, add in a few more. Get it all gone at the same time.
Also-what is your fixation with Benning about? I ask, because I didn't bring him up, but you pretend like I did?
did he hurt you?
Can you show us where he touched you?
Displacement is a thing.
 
Last edited:
gm place was outdated the moment it was built. it was a mistake to build an arena on such a small footprint. the concourses were doomed to be dark and cramped from the start
 
  • Like
Reactions: sting101 and Peen
MS said:
About time. Wasn't this originally supposed to happen like 5 years ago?

We have one of the oldest, most dated arenas in the NHL. It's funny to think that GM Place (I refuse to call it by whatever the official name is) is actually a few years older than the Pacific Coliseum was when the team moved out.
Click to expand...

I've said this before but it would be a godsends if the Aquilini's ever sell the team. One to eliminate FAQ from the equation and the second reason being that new owners would be heavily invested in building a new arena. The biggest downside as time goes on will be the full development of the Vancouver proper forcing any potential arena to be located in the outer periphery of Vancouver or beyond.
 
IslandBeast said:
I think new seats is great. More color for more brightness should only help improve the atmosphere inside the arena I would think

No more theater esque dark burgundy. Reminds me of a movie theater where everyone has to remain silent
Click to expand...
If new seats can help that building get louder; I'm all for it.
 
credulous said:
gm place was outdated the moment it was built. it was a mistake to build an arena on such a small footprint. the concourses were doomed to be dark and cramped from the start
Click to expand...

Agreed, for such a beautiful city they picked the worst spot
 
logan5 said:
Downtown Vancouver is far more densely populated than most North American cities, so it’s not like there was a lot of sites to choose from.
Click to expand...

central area plan wasn't a thing until 91. rogers arena opened in 1995. there were ample sites for an arena the team just wanted to be next to bc place for some reason
 
andora said:
I moved this over here to get it out of the draft thread

I know what you are saying by going back to previous management.. basically that the overall deep health of the organization long term should override a current management and retooling.. i think i said that right

But i make the break when management changed.. personally i agree with the approach they are going.. basically because i would rather use the elite talent i have and their skills to push towards something like the playoffs rather than wait put contracts and collect mid rounders.

As long as they continue to adding subtle future pieces as well while trying to supplement the active team i like it.
Click to expand...

From the closed thread:

Yes, you have my position right. Now let me see if I can interpret yours correctly: You would rather push towards the playoffs [by expending key future assets] rather filling in the base first.

Is that right? If so, my reply is to first point out that re-tool + core vs rebuild + core are both strategies using Pettersson-Hughes-Demko as the base. It's what happens around them that separates the mode. Your method has _every_ 1st rounder on the table for current players/cap relief. A scorched earth policy: Because why would you draft if the goal is to make the current team stronger now? My method seeks to draft first and supplement with underrated player options (Severson/Hronek).

To me, they have to do what I'm suggesting anyways, later, because they will not be able to sustain playoff runs without pipeline+cap help (if they get there). But the risk in what I'm suggesting is that they don't get there immediately, and to some, that could cost them Pettersson (I don't think that's the case, but YMMV). I would take the route that better ensures the structures underneath the core.
 
Last edited:
A quibble with something from an earlier post...think our 2nd is now well past the "practically a late 1st" threshold. Not even certain it will be in the first third of the round at this point.

Trading this year's 1st really depends on the timeline of the prospects they expect to be available. This roster certainly has holes in it, and this pick needs to address one of them.

If they feel the player they take will be on the team within the next 2 years, then that is the best option imo. Getting contributors on ELCs -- even if just as quality depth and role players -- is a key part of gaining cap flexibility.

But if they view the tier of prospects likely to be available as longer term projects, then the pick should be on the table. Doesn't mean it *has* to be dealt, but certainly listen to offers (especially on draft day when you've seen how the board went). I'd expect the FO to do their due diligence and have contingency plans based on whose available at their pick, because that's basically being competent.

For cap space, I still expect it will be Boeser and Myers that are moved. Turning those two into a 3C, top4 D, and a bit of additional cap space needs to be the focus of this offseason.
 
andora said:
forgive me - but how are you meaning 'level of futures acquired through 14-16'? The two most influential deals to their success were both draft day deals - trading a 1st for a 2nd and a 3rd (cirelli) and trading a 3rd and a 7th for a higher 3rd for point. the other stuff during that timeframe wasn't some huge collection hoarded and then used - it was some trades players for picks either way and then repurposing draft picks.

this is what i am talking about how tampa's history, in my opinion gets misrepresented in the way in which they approached their building. they traded more first rounders than obtaining between 2009-2020, but it is how the draft picks were utilized in trades. i don't understand the line 'didn't sell the future until they had the horses' - the only thing they did consistently was manipulate the future - that's all i'm saying. they had 5 top 10 picks since stamkos - 3 were duds but they focused on moving the asset.

i don't get why this approach can't be done here.. they didn't hoard/collect some giant warchest.. they just didn't. they have a 6+ draft pick surplus from 2008. they succeed in identifying who they want and getting it.



regarding lots of picks - they had a 2 pick surplus between that 2013 draft and 2015 draft.
Click to expand...


Tampa's history goes first build (Lecavalier) -> cup -> downfall -> rebuild (Stamkos) -> onward. They kept their 1st rounder 5 years post Hedman draft (2009). Then they started trading them (2015).

Doesn't really compare to here because this team didn't rebuild post Sedins. However, granted, if the scouting staff is able to trade down and leverage their selections to meet or surpass 1st round selections, most would be for it. Have they shown that ability?

Further, have they shown a preternatural ability to manipulate the cap?

Last, have they shown an extraordinary ability of pro scouting?

Tampa utilized many avenues toward greatness. That's why their management has been lauded. Is this one even close? Early returns: imo, no (to be kind).
 
alternate said:
A quibble with something from an earlier post...think our 2nd is now well past the "practically a late 1st" threshold. Not even certain it will be in the first third of the round at this point.

Trading this year's 1st really depends on the timeline of the prospects they expect to be available. This roster certainly has holes in it, and this pick needs to address one of them.

If they feel the player they take will be on the team within the next 2 years, then that is the best option imo. Getting contributors on ELCs -- even if just as quality depth and role players -- is a key part of gaining cap flexibility.

But if they view the tier of prospects likely to be available as longer term projects, then the pick should be on the table. Doesn't mean it *has* to be dealt, but certainly listen to offers (especially on draft day when you've seen how the board went). I'd expect the FO to do their due diligence and have contingency plans based on whose available at their pick, because that's basically being competent.

For cap space, I still expect it will be Boeser and Myers that are moved. Turning those two into a 3C, top4 D, and a bit of additional cap space needs to be the focus of this offseason.
Click to expand...


This is what I don't understand from re-tool advocates (not just you). They've propped up the Hronek trade as a necessary move. Time is now. Re-tool or Pettersson will leave. Or, the trade had to be done to show Pettersson this team is competing now etc... Yet, after all of this rhetoric, the 1st doesn't get dealt?

If the goal is to compete now, that pick has to be dealt. That is the logical extreme of the base premise. It follows exactly the point that the team must get as strong as possible now. Future be damned.

If that's not the case, and the future is to be served first, then the Hronek trade doesn't happen. They instead find a budget option in FA (as they did with Schenn) and build. It's one path, or the other. Not both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrentSopelsHair
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom