Post-Game Talk: GM 45: Canucks def. Wings 2-1 (SO) - Clinch Playoff Berth

[m9]

Ebbett plays a position of need, and at least Pinizzotto hits, which Kassian does not.

We have four centers. Ebbett played on the wing last night. What is his position of need?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Gillis no longer believes in the Detroit model. Detroit's model is skill, smarts and quick puck movement over all else and Gillis' objective is to add as much size as possible, at the expense of skill and smarts.

Gillis stopped believing in Holland's model 2 years ago.

And yet he goes out and gets Roy at the deadline. A player with skill+smarts+playmaking ability...?

But that's besides the point. The first step is admitting there is a model at all. That it does in fact exist. You have done so (by implying it's existence as something to follow/not follow), but others have not.

 

[Fat Tony]

This whole 'send him down' thing continues to be the most clueless response ever. He doesn't have to be Hodgson to play on the Canucks, he just has to be one of the Canucks top 12 forwards. You're saying guys like Ebbett and Pinnizotto are better players than him?

You're saying Ebbett and Pinnizotto are better than Schroeder? Saying Kassian should be sent down is not saying he should be punished. If he's not ready at this level, he should be sent down.

 

[m9]

You're saying Ebbett and Pinnizotto are better than Schroeder? Saying Kassian should be sent down is not saying he should be punished. If he's not ready at this level, he should be sent down.

I am saying he is one of the team's top 12 forwards, so people saying he should get 'sent down' are clueless.

And this is all ignoring the other thing, that as of tomorrow there won't even be a team to send anyone down to.

 

[Dado]

And yet he goes out and gets Roy at the deadline. A player with skill+smarts+playmaking ability...?

But that's besides the point.

It's quite on-point. Detroit doesn't do big-name trade deadline deals.

The previous poster is correct - we've moved off the Detroit Model (or more accurately, off of Gillis's perception of what the Detroit Model is).

 

[m9]

It's quite on-point. Detroit doesn't do big-name trade deadline deals.

The previous poster is correct - we've moved off the Detroit Model (or more accurately, off of Gillis's perception of what the Detroit Model is).

Didn't they trade their 1st for Quincey last year around the deadline? Even if you don't think highly of Quincey anytime you trade your first it's a big move.

 

[Fat Tony]

I am saying he is one of the team's top 12 forwards, so people saying he should get 'sent down' are clueless.

And this is all ignoring the other thing, that as of tomorrow there won't even be a team to send anyone down to.

Read the post you quoted. How is it clueless when said in this context?

If Kassian needs more growing up, send him to Chicago.

 

[Bleach Clean]

It's quite on-point. Detroit doesn't do big-name trade deadline deals.

The previous poster is correct - we've moved off the Detroit Model (or more accurately, off of Gillis's perception of what the Detroit Model is).

No, it's not on point. The existence of the model itself is in question here, not Gillis's adherence to it. That comes after. Fat Tony is contending here that a model does not exist, despite Gillis's explicit viewpoint to the contrary. That's the point in contention here.

And Roy fits exactly the type of player DET would traditionally employ. So he in fact endorses a return to the model, or a re-incorporation of it, if anything. (Don't actually get the point about deadline deals because DET has moved some pretty significant assets in the past at the deadline)

 

[Fat Tony]

Didn't they trade their 1st for Quincey last year around the deadline? Even if you don't think highly of Quincey anytime you trade your first it's a big move.

To shore up their defense. It's a break in the model. Everyone knew Lidstrom couldn't keep playing forever.

 

[m9]

Read the post you quoted. How is it clueless when said in this context?

Chicago's season is over. If Kassian needs to 'grow up' then being around the team in the playoffs is a good start.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

And yet he goes out and gets Roy at the deadline. A player with skill+smarts+playmaking ability...?

But that's besides the point. The first step is admitting there is a model at all. That it does in fact exist. You have done so (by implying it's existence as something to follow/not follow), but others have not.

And he went out and got Roy because he traded his smart, talented, somewhat undersized young centre for a hulking, physical winger. He also went pretty hard after Clowe, Doan etc...

Does Detroit put a TON of emphasis on size? Because that seems to be what is behind the majority of Gillis' moves right now. Whether he's targeting Lain, Laganierre, Taker etc. or drafting Gaunce, Mallet, Labate types it appears that size has taken a much bigger precedence over skill and smarts.

After losing in the cup finals the Detroit model went out the window. I imagine Gillis wants to assemble a team with enough size and strength as to not have to rely on the league to do their job in regards to limiting obstruction come playoff time. But as we know, once the Canucks have that type of team assembled, we will see a PP driven league once again.

 

[Fat Tony]

Chicago's season is over. If Kassian needs to 'grow up' then being around the team in the playoffs is a good start.

Forgot about that.

 

[Fat Tony]

Fat Tony is contending here that a model does not exist, despite Gillis's explicit viewpoint to the contrary.

Oh, the model exists. How successful it can be and what factors make it so is the point of contention.

And I only place so much stock in the fact that a philosophy is advocated by a hockey executive. Kevin Lowe is a hockey executive, for instance.

 

[Bleach Clean]

And he went out and got Roy because he traded his smart, talented, somewhat undersized young centre for a hulking, physical winger. He also went pretty hard after Clowe, Doan etc...

Does Detroit put a TON of emphasis on size? Because that seems to be what is behind the majority of Gillis' moves right now. Whether he's targeting Lain, Laganierre, Taker etc. or drafting Gaunce, Mallet, Labate types it appears that size has taken a much bigger precedence over skill and smarts.

After losing in the cup finals the Detroit model went out the window. I imagine Gillis wants to assemble a team with enough size and strength as to not have to rely on the league to do their job in regards to limiting obstruction come playoff time. But as we know, once the Canucks have that type of team assembled, we will see a PP driven league once again.

Size has taken more of a front-seat with Gillis. There's not denying it. I've said as much here as well. But I think it's premature to say that the model itself "went out the window" entirely. Roy and interest in Jokinen should be proof of that. DET also had brought in bigger, skilled players in the past to compliment those smaller players, so I see Gillis targeting both types now (where there was a stretch where he was clearly myopic) is a return to the overall model, or a hybrid of it.

He seems to be realizing that he can't swing all the way in one direction without repercussions.

Also, again, you do in fact outline that there is a model, which is the key point here. We can debate his prescription to it, but we agree that a methodology does in fact exist, somewhere.

 

[Dado]

Fat Tony is contending here that a model does not exist...

That is a mischaracterization of Fat Tony's point of view, but I will let him deal with that.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Oh, the model exists. How successful it can be and what factors make it so is the point of contention.

No. Incorrect. You are changing the parameters of the discussion here. The "model" is a mirage to you, remember? Gillis is seeing something that isn't there, right? How can you go from that, to questioning the existence of a thing, to taking the position of debating the factors that comprise it?

I think your original position has now rightfully come into question.

And I only place so much stock in the fact that a philosophy is advocated by a hockey executive. Kevin Lowe is a hockey executive, for instance.

Of course, and Milbury was another. Neither of which have had the track record Gillis has had with wins earned over 4 years and winning the GM of the year award. Perhaps he should consider he knows a little bit about what he says?

That is a mischaracterization of Fat Tony's point of view, but I will let him deal with that.

Hmmm... How would you characterize this:


"I believe the entire model was a mirage" - Fat Tony.


Seems pretty self-explanatory.

 

[Fat Tony]

No. Incorrect. You are changing the parameters of the discussion here. The "model" is a mirage to you, remember? Gillis is seeing something that isn't there, right? How can you go from that, to questioning the existence of a thing, to taking the position of debating the factors that comprise it?

I think your original position has now rightfully come into question.

You know exactly what I mean. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel if this is what your argument is reduced to.

 

[HTT3*]

Detroit is playing for its life right now and they couldn't put away a team featuring Cam Barker, Alberts and Ballard playing significant minutes.

In all fairness, Detroit couldn't solve and amazing goaltender named Cory Schneider. That kid has skill!

 

[Bleach Clean]

Bleach you're overrating Detroits model.

Look at the players they had at the beginning. At one point in the late 90's they had 3 400+ goal scorers on their 4th line.

They bought they're 90's cups.

Also bought Hossa and Rafalski to name two after the 1st lockout.

The guys They found in the draft (Datayuk and Zetterberg) don't come around every few years.

The system is flawed when its dependent on Fedorov, lidstrom, yzerman, Shanahan, Konstantinov, larionov, hull, chelios, etc etc

I may be overrating it. But I believe it exists. That it does in fact help them achieve the consistency they have experienced over the years. Even simply to compliment their great players.

Oh, and no system is infallible. That's not my contention.

No, one really good player can make the a mediocre team a contender. Detroit is a mediocre team.

Cool.


Not complete. Detroit would have been a mediocre team that I don't think would likely have reached a Finals without Lidstrom.


1980-2004.

So a mediocre team, as in a bubble team, can become a contender with 1 player. Interesting. Disagree, it takes a collection of players. Even if you want to include perennial all-stars like Zetterberg and Datsyuk in that "collection".

This latest STL build started in 2005. And it was built primarily through the draft. And a key point here: Drafting late. That is their nucleus. DET also put this team's nucleus together by drafting late. In the case of Zett/Dats, real late. Point being, the core of each team was built the hard way. Maybe they picked up a thing or two from their division rivals?

 

[y2kcanucks]

No, it's not on point. The existence of the model itself is in question here, not Gillis's adherence to it. That comes after. Fat Tony is contending here that a model does not exist, despite Gillis's explicit viewpoint to the contrary. That's the point in contention here.

And Roy fits exactly the type of player DET would traditionally employ. So he in fact endorses a return to the model, or a re-incorporation of it, if anything. (Don't actually get the point about deadline deals because DET has moved some pretty significant assets in the past at the deadline)

Why is the existence or non-existence of any particular model even matter? It's being discussed like we're all mulling over Pam Anderson circa 1994 vs. Cindy Crawford circa 1992.

I would honestly rather see Gillis try to create a Canucks model rather than trying to emulate an apple when we're dealing with oranges.

 

[Bleach Clean]

You know exactly what I mean. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel if this is what your argument is reduced to.

You posted that the model was a mirage. And inferred that Lidstrom _is_ the model. Later, you said that Gillis believes in something that doesn't exist (mirage). But now you're saying a methodology does exist?

Okay, let's now run with it does exist. To you, is the DET model basically collecting or retaining the best players? If not, explain what you think the model is so that we may better discuss it's merits/pitfalls.

To me, the model is an emphasis on puck possession, key player types and drafting style. For instance, the PMD is very favoured by both clubs. Drafting leans more to the boom/bust types that have longer development cycles (by design). Finally, the puck possession can be seen with how players protect the puck, their ability to battle, and skill to create 1 on 1 coverage problems. Is this how you see the model?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Why is the existence or non-existence of any particular model even matter? It's being discussed like we're all mulling over Pam Anderson circa 1994 vs. Cindy Crawford circa 1992.

I would honestly rather see Gillis try to create a Canucks model rather than trying to emulate an apple when we're dealing with oranges.

It matters, or mattered, for the purposes of this discussion. Now that we have that aspect out of the way, we could discuss its merits.

I think Gillis is actually trying to create his own model. As DTS points out, there was a departure from the traditional DET model for some time there. But with recent targets, the analysis gets muddled a bit. He may be moving for a hybrid of sorts.

 

[Zombotron]

In all fairness, Detroit couldn't solve and amazing goaltender named Cory Schneider. That kid has skill!

One of the only Canucks I have 100% faith in going into the playoffs. He's gonna go hard.

 

[m9]

It matters, or mattered, for the purposes of this discussion. Now that we have that aspect out of the way, we could discuss its merits.

I think Gillis is actually trying to create his own model. As DTS points out, there was a departure from the traditional DET model for some time there. But with recent targets, the analysis gets muddled a bit. He may be moving for a hybrid of sorts.

I remember arguing about 'the Detroit model' last year, but I agree with this. Gillis took their template to start as a fresh GM, and has just developed it from there. Part of the reason for the change may be the changes in how penalties are called, as having size matters again. Or, seeing teams like Boston and Philly have some success.

My main point last year was who cares about the Detroit model now, as what Gillis has done is just as good as what has been going on in Detroit the last few years. It's still too early to tell on the draft picks of Gillis, but it will be an interesting comparison in a few years.

 

[Proto]

Detroit has made a ton of deadline acquisitions before. This whole discussion of "The Detroit Model" strikes me as a bit silly.