The Armchair GM Thread - Part XXXIII

[dave babych returns]

Jesus, maybe I need to rethink my opinion.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Actually the Canucks have struggled mightily against teams that establish and dominate control of the space in front of their own goal. [/B
]This is because the Canucks don't have great size (Canucks forwards over 6'0 and over 200lbs who had more than 10 minutes per game last playoffs: 1).



This is patently untrue (guys like Hansen and Raymond are clearly capable of this) but just to respond to the spirit of your argument - it would be great to have Patrick Sharp as our fifth-best forward but there are only one or two teams in the league with that kind of depth of high end skill and the Canucks simply aren't built that way.

Anyway all of this seems to presuppose that a player like Ryane Clowe doesn't possess skill, if you compare him to Alfredsson I don't think you're passing up a huge amount of ability.

Since 2009-10 (including that year) Alfredsson has been between 1st and 3rd among Sens forwards in average ice time per game and has put up 25G, 65P per 82 games. Clowe has consistently been 5th or 6th among Sharks forwards in ice time over that stretch and has put up 20G 56P per 82 games.

I agree especially with the first paragraph. The bottom line is that in the playoffs you need to get to the front of the net to score and to set up screens for your defence to score (see what Burrows has done the last few games and what Higgins did on Garrison's goal). Both Boston and LA were very good at playing grinding hockey. You also need contributions from all lines. A lot of real strong offensively skilled teams like the old Washington Capitals, the Hawks, Sharks, Penguins, Canucks etc get shut down in the playoffs as the refs call less and it becomes a more 5 on 5 grinding game. I'd prefer to get someone with size who can play tough in the playoffs.

That's not to say that Alfredsson wouldn't be a good addition but I think a big guy who can chip in would be better. Mind you, I'd take both is they were offered.

 

[Jay Cee]

Well, I'm not even going to respond to what Vector said, that's ridiculous.

Same time, people really throw around the word "skill" flippantly. There are all different types of skill and just because you add a certain type of player doesn't mean his type of "skill" will translate well to the team or his linemates. Building a hockey team is not in my opinion a pure exercise of looking at stats, penciling in points here and there as if they are a given based on past performance.

In that breath, I don't think by any streatch we are simply any old "30 goal scorer" away from being a cup winner.

 

[Tiranis]

I actually think the team suffers precisely because they need to be closer to the net to score. Sedin's cycle goals tend to be from closer up so if you don't let them to get in close then it's a problem.

Acquiring another guy that needs to go to the net to score is not the answer, IMO. Even if he gets there, the puck has to follow and that's much more difficult. If anything we need a guy that can score when there's simply no access to the net.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Interesting. I thought the team's lack of play-off scoring was due to their top forwards being too soft/small/weak.

Well, in keeping with sports forum tradition, we usually attribute the team's lack of success at anything with some deficiency on the team, rather than strong play on the part of the opponent.

Our three offense starved series were Boston, LA, and Nashville.

Boston was the 2nd best defensive team in the league in 2010-2011.
Nashville was the the 3rd (a stunning .02 GPG allowed more than Boston)
LA was the 2nd in 2011-2012 (statistically stronger than either Boston or Nashville).

Incredibly, elite defensive clubs prevented the Canucks from scoring a lot of goals. In one of those series our team was a patchwork quilt of injuries, and in another we were missing one of our two superstar forwards.

Clearly offense could be better. Everything could always be better. But even in this fumble-bum short season with our gimpy power play and 2/3rds of the 2nd line out for a dozen+ games, we've quietly climbed to 8th in GPG. Could we use another high skill guy? Of course we could. But it's a bit of a first world problem, hockey-style.

 

[dave babych returns]

I actually think the team suffers precisely because they need to be closer to the net to score. Sedin's cycle goals tend to be from closer up so if you don't let them to get in close then it's a problem.

Acquiring another guy that needs to go to the net to score is not the answer, IMO. Even if he gets there, the puck has to follow and that's much more difficult. If anything we need a guy that can score when there's simply no access to the net.

You think it's hopeless to try to get to the front of the net?

Don't get me wrong I'd love to sprinkle a few one shot scorers throughout the lineup but even the fairly limited ones (say Michael Ryder) make more than most of our forwards..

 

[Bleach Clean]

I actually think the team suffers precisely because they need to be closer to the net to score. Sedin's cycle goals tend to be from closer up so if you don't let them to get in close then it's a problem.

Acquiring another guy that needs to go to the net to score is not the answer, IMO. Even if he gets there, the puck has to follow and that's much more difficult. If anything we need a guy that can score when there's simply no access to the net.

It's all related I think. If the team is too reliant on going to the net to score, then improving the team' size helps them do that better. DBR is essentially pointing out, and correct me if I'm wrong, that bigger players put the team in a better position to facilitate their current game plan: offense directed near the net. A plan that's been stifled by bigger teams that collapse. So the team needs to add more size to break through that strategy.

On the other hand, a skill guy that can pick corners from afar also gets around that issue. But usually, these skill types aren't bigger players. So while you add an element that is unlike your "mode" to get around a specific problem, you are in fact moving away from the bigger design of your team in the process.

That's why LA getting Carter was such a clever move for them. He's the bigger body that helps keep the method of the team intact while also adding the sniper element that allows them to get around collapsing defences better. He fits both criteria.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

It's all related I think. If the team is too reliant on going to the net to score, then improving the team' size helps them do that better. DBR is essentially pointing out, and correct me if I'm wrong, that bigger players put the team in a better position to facilitate their current game plan: offense directed near the net. A plan that's been stifled by bigger teams that collapse. So the team needs to add more size to break through that strategy.

On the other hand, a skill guy that can pick corners from afar also gets around that issue. But usually, these skill types aren't bigger players. So while you add an element that is unlike your "mode" to get around a specific problem, you are in fact moving away from the bigger design of your team in the process.

That's why LA getting Carter was such a clever move for them. He's the bigger body that helps keep the method of the team intact while also adding the sniper element that allows them to get around collapsing defences better. He fits both criteria.

Agreed. I think that Gillis may have been hoping that Booth was our Carter.

 

[Tiranis]

You think it's hopeless to try to get to the front of the net?

I think there's enough guys (Booth, Kesler, Burrows in our Top 6) that can do it. I don't think adding Clowe will be a huge benefit especially since he has never been a great goal scorer. I think we have less one-shot options than we have big guys. Besides, I think the bigger problem is getting the puck to the net rather than the guys.

The Bruins for all their toughness had more dynamic, one-shot scorers than we do which is also how they scored a lot of their goals.

 

[Proto]

The thing is, the Sedins are both very good shooters. They're accurate with good releases. One thing they need to do to take the next step is recognize when they're playing a team that won't give up that real estate (like the Preds in 2011) and start using their wrist shots more.

95% of the time the Sedins can play their game through sheer force of will and break teams down. Against teams with elite d pairings, they need to occasionally swallow their pride and make that adjustment, in my opinion. Even just shooting a bit more often will open things up, and Burrows is excellent at grabbing rebounds.

 

[Bleach Clean]

A dynamic one shot scorer will be very difficult to find...

 

[dave babych returns]

It's all related I think. If the team is too reliant on going to the net to score, then improving the team' size helps them do that better. DBR is essentially pointing out, and correct me if I'm wrong, that bigger players put the team in a better position to facilitate their current game plan: offense directed near the net. A plan that's been stifled by bigger teams that collapse. So the team needs to add more size to break through that strategy.

Yeah, that's more or less it. It's just maddening watching the team moving the puck around the edges of the zone during the playoffs, putting it on net and there's a glorious rebound (or what have you) that no Canuck can get within fifteen feet of.

On the other hand, a skill guy that can pick corners from afar also gets around that issue. But usually, these skill types aren't bigger players. So while you add an element that is unlike your "mode" to get around a specific problem, you are in fact moving away from the bigger design of your team in the process.

Don't get me wrong I'd love to add this as well.

Either depth guys who happen to have this in their skill set (the Ryder, Marchand, Peverly, Bolland, etc types.. I hate those guys btw ) or a high end player like Phil Kessel - to grab a name that's been bandied about here - would be incredible for the diversity of this team's attack.

I just don't see the point of selling the farm to get a guy like Daniel Alfredsson who while being a key veteran who deserves the respect he gets, hasn't been leaps and bounds more productive than the players who are already our 5th or 6th best forwards.

I think there's enough guys (Booth, Kesler, Burrows in our Top 6) that can do it. I don't think adding Clowe will be a huge benefit especially since he has never been a great goal scorer. I think we have less one-shot options than we have big guys. Besides, I think the bigger problem is getting the puck to the net rather than the guys.

The Bruins for all their toughness had more dynamic, one-shot scorers than we do which is also how they scored a lot of their goals.

I think the claim that there are enough top six players who can either get the puck to the net or who can hold their own without it in that territory (enough to win possession there) is basically dependent on whether David Booth proves he can do that in the postseason.

To me, Kesler and Burrows is not enough.. Kesler, Burrows, Booth and Kassian would be. We are just relying on two guys who for various reasons may not be able to perform that way this year.

But yeah I do agree about the Bruins, they killed us off the rush more than they did by running us over in front of our net.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

A dynamic one shot scorer will be very difficult to find...

We actually have one when he is healthy in Kesler. He's got one of the better shots in the NHL. The problem last year is that he couldn't really shoot given his shoulder. If he's healthy going into the playoffs that gives us the one time shooter which especially makes our powerplay more dynamic. Last year and in the Boston series I think that Kesler being injured really took away a lot of options especially on the powerplay and made us more predictable. I think that we've already seen our powerplay start to improve this year since Kelser came back and I expect that to only get better as he gets in game shape.

 

[sdbullet]

Dynamic one shot scorer's are difficult to find, but one that may be available is Michael Ryder. I would definitely look at moving Booth in exchange for Ryder, Ryder is a UFA at the end of the year but would add a shooter that our lineup could definitely use, and to expand the trade I would look to move:

Booth and Ballard

for

Ryder and Robidas

Robidas would be a good compliment to either Edler or Garrison on the right side and Ryder would be an excellent RW for either the Sedins or Kesler.

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Higgins-Kesler-Ryder
Raymond-Schroeder-Hansen
Volpatti/Weise-Lapierre-Kassian

Edler-Robidas
Hamhuis-Bieksa
Garrison-Tanev

 

[Alflives*]

I think there's enough guys (Booth, Kesler, Burrows in our Top 6) that can do it. I don't think adding Clowe will be a huge benefit especially since he has never been a great goal scorer. I think we have less one-shot options than we have big guys. Besides, I think the bigger problem is getting the puck to the net rather than the guys.

The Bruins for all their toughness had more dynamic, one-shot scorers than we do which is also how they scored a lot of their goals.

Who do the Bruins have that can do that better than the Canucks? The Bruins have big, tough guys that create space for their talented players to get into excellent scoring positions. Clowe would do that for the Canucks, so would Chris Neal. Those are the types of players the Canucks need to compliment their existing line-up.

 

[Proto]

Ribeiro, if available, is around a 15% shooter for his career, but he doesn't shoot a heck of a lot, so he's not your prototypical one-shot sniper.

I don't think he'll be available though. I think the Caps get themselves back into the hunt.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

But yeah I do agree about the Bruins, they killed us off the rush more than they did by running us over in front of our net.

That might have something to do with the fact that our defense corps was a walking ambulatory ward by that point in the series. Bieksa was pretty much the only healthy non-rookie/fringe player left, and Kevin has never been one to perform well in a vacuum.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Dynamic one shot scorer's are difficult to find, but one that may be available is Michael Ryder. I would definitely look at moving Booth in exchange for Ryder, Ryder is a UFA at the end of the year but would add a shooter that our lineup could definitely use, and to expand the trade I would look to move:

Booth and Ballard

for

Ryder and Robidas

Robidas would be a good compliment to either Edler or Garrison on the right side and Ryder would be an excellent RW for either the Sedins or Kesler.

The Canucks had the chance to get Ryder as an FA before he signed in Dallas, I didn't hear of any interest by them in him. But then they got Sturm so...?

Point is, Booth is a player that you want to add to, not remove. If he call is to get more scorers, why remove one that is statistically proficient? There's little net gain. Addin Ryder to Booth, Kesler and Burrows would make more sense. Maybe Raymond is already that guy? His shot has improved greatly.

 

[arsmaster*]

I think there's enough guys (Booth, Kesler, Burrows in our Top 6) that can do it. I don't think adding Clowe will be a huge benefit especially since he has never been a great goal scorer. I think we have less one-shot options than we have big guys. Besides, I think the bigger problem is getting the puck to the net rather than the guys.

The Bruins for all their toughness had more dynamic, one-shot scorers than we do which is also how they scored a lot of their goals.

Did they though?

Marchand is possibly one, Ryder, Seguin...I'm not ready to say Lucic, Horton, Bergeron, Peverly, Kreijci etc are.

They scored their fair share by getting into the scoring zones (and their one shot goals IMO were fairly week....bad visions of game 6 in my head now, thanks).

 

[dave babych returns]

That might have something to do with the fact that our defense corps was a walking ambulatory ward by that point in the series. Bieksa was pretty much the only healthy non-rookie/fringe player left, and Kevin has never been one to perform well in a vacuum.

I think Bieksa had a knee injury thanks to a Rich Peverly slash on the back of the leg..

Come to think of it that's something the Canucks could use, dishonest players who try to make their impact when the refs aren't looking, rather than when they are.

 

[Tiranis]

Did they though?

Marchand is possibly one, Ryder, Seguin...I'm not ready to say Lucic, Horton, Bergeron, Peverly, Kreijci etc are.

They scored their fair share by getting into the scoring zones (and their one shot goals IMO were fairly week....bad visions of game 6 in my head now, thanks).

Bergeron definitely is. He has a top level shot. Horton can be one, he also has a very good shot and shoots a lot.

I would say we are definitely lacking in the shot department. If we could upgrade someone like Higgins with a guy who has a great shot then we would be well off. I wouldn't trade Booth because even though he doesn't have a top level shot, he gets in the position to shoot a lot and that's valuable in itself.

 

[arsmaster*]

Bergeron definitely is. He has a top level shot. Horton can be one, he also has a very good shot and shoots a lot.

Do you consider Jonathan Toews a one shot scorer?

He and Bergeron are great players, but they score most if not all their goals within 20 feet of the net, most on dekes or hard moves to the crease.

 

[Tiranis]

Do you consider Jonathan Toews a one shot scorer?

He and Bergeron are great players, but they score most if not all their goals within 20 feet of the net, most on dekes or hard moves to the crease.

I'm not saying that's the only way they have to score. I'm saying he has the ability. And he used that ability in that series against us.

I would like to see Daniel use his shot more because he can certainly pick corners. But mostly I guess I just wish for a more versatile offensive player. They don't have to be a guy like Ryder who pretty much defines himself as a one-shot scorer but they could be someone who just has that tool in their toolbox.

 

[Cogburn]

"One shot scorer" is this teams new buzz word? What happened to "dynamic powerforward"?

We have the talent, we have guys with lethal shots, but again...L.A., Nashville and Boston...when we played them, these teams were very, very, very good at stopping teams from scoring.

Kesler, Booth (potentially), Burrows, Higgins, Hansen, Raymond, Schroeder...all of them possess the ability to be that kind of sniper (if past games are anything to go by), but it's not in our system.

Edler, Bieksa, Garrison, Hamhuis and even "muffin-shot" Ballard are all capable too. Hell, that's how defensemen score on the PP!

Again, if we get one of these mythological creatures, this "one shot scorer", it's going to cost us. It might cost us Kassian, then no more "dynamic power forward". It could cost us Kesler, then no more "elite shutdown center". Hell even if it cost us Weise, Lapierre and a 5th, we'd start complaining about depth and grit. Again.

Also, when this guy doesn't start scoring immediately, we'll be calling for his head. Seriously. Kassian, Garrison, Ballard, Hamhuis, Samuelsson, Demitra, Sundin...every pseudo-big name we've gotten that hasn't started their first game with a hattrick, a fight, 10 big hits and 20 blocked shots, we want on the first trade out of town.

TL;DR...we don't need a "one shot scorer", we potentially have several, and even if we pay the price to get one, it'll hurt our roster or our future, and fans will still want the guy gone.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I'm not saying that's the only way they have to score. I'm saying he has the ability. And he used that ability in that series against us.

I would like to see Daniel use his shot more because he can certainly pick corners. But mostly I guess I just wish for a more versatile offensive player. They don't have to be a guy like Ryder who pretty much defines himself as a one-shot scorer but they could be someone who just has that tool in their toolbox.

A versatile offensive player - can you name some of these that wouldn't inherently cost a lot to get? Are you thinking someone like a Kadri or a Ribeiro?