Ownership and Management's vision might be ideally suited for 4 green/1 red hotel
Ownership and Management's vision might be ideally suited for 4 green/1 red hotel
Hey guys,
Great responses. I've been busy and likely won't be on board for the upcoming season, but here's my thought:
1) When a team is trending downward as the Canucks have been for the past few years, said team will typically accumulate higher end picks and prospects.....as the Canucks have. Which leads me to point #2.
2) When said team has a decent number of picks and prospects, I believe they can go one of three ways: A) Stay the course (i.e. slow gradual transition of phasing vets and getting younger kids/prospects into the line-up), B) Blow it up via veteran sell-off and hyper-accumulate picks/prospects in a short-time (i.e. "The Toronto Model?"). C) 4 Green Houses for a Red Hotel......which leads me to point #3.
3) The problem with A) 'staying the course,' is that you end up kind of in no man's land (i.e. not good enough to make the playoffs, but not terrible enough to land a franchise player like Toronto and Edmonton do). As result, you end up with a decent number of prospects but lose out on both ends (i.e. no playoffs, and no accumulation of elite prospects). This is where the Canucks might be heading unless they draft and develop picks/prospects much better than we anticipate (which is what I suspect will happen, but again........different debate for a different day).
The problem with B) "The Toronto Model," is that you risk ending up with a boatload of prospects (elite and non-elite), but no quality vets to hold the young kids accountable. This is one reason why Edmonton never went to the next level, and one reason why I suspect Toronto's model might be overrated (and one reason why Benning, Linden, and Ownership haven't embraced 'B' like most people on here want). You need character and elite vets that are/were formerly superstars, won cups, or were leaders on prior successful teams.
That leads to option 'C' - 4 green houses for one red hotel.
Some people subscribe to the following theory: You don't need a "boatload of prospects" to properly rebuild, and you don't need to "blow it up" via veteran sell-off to properly rebuild. All you need, are the following 3 pieces:
1) A franchise center
2) A franchise defenseman
3) A "very good" goalie that can play like a franchise goalie when it counts most.
So as it relates to the Canucks, what do we have?
Demko, Juolevi, Horvat, Boeser, Markstrom, Hutton, Baertschi, Virtanen, 2017 1st, and maybe 1-2 other guys that I'm excluding due to September cob-webs.
I'm just imagining a scenario where the Canucks, hypothetically, trade Horvat, Boeser, Markstrom, Hutton, Baertschi, Virtanen, and a 2017 1st, in separate deals, and land 2 of the following 3: a young franchise defenseman, a young potential franchise goalie, and (dare I say?) a young franchise center that a team is willing to give up.
I just want to throw two names (and I don't want to turn this into a Fantasy Roster type post):
-Hampus Lindholm
-Connor Hellebuyck
Again, these names are just examples, but what if the Canucks made a huge pitch for both guys........guys that are still extremely young........and completely solidified their defense and goaltending for years to come? For instance, you'd have Lindholm and Juolevi on defense (i.e. 1, maybe 2, potential Norris trophy candidates), and you now double your chances of having a future Vezina candidate in Connor Hellebuyck and Thatcher Demko.
Defense
-Lindholm
-Juolevi
Goaltending:
-Connor Hellebuyck
-Thatcher Demko
Again, these names are just examples. Horvat, Markstrom ,Virtanen, Boeser, Baertschi, Hutton, 2017 1st, etc. are all used to acquire said players.
So what happens? Although far less prospects enter the main roster, you now have two young cornerstone franchise players in two different positions on the roster instead. And because there is far less prospects entering the line-up, you can then fill in the gaps via veteran UFA signings........and in effect, label this entire thing what management really wants. Rebuilding-re-tooling on the Fly / Transitioning to a new core.
4 green houses = 1 red hotel = Transitioning from current core to new core, while simultaneously fielding a competitive team.
Obviously, the potential drawback/opportunity cost of employing such a strategy is that your current 'green houses' can develop into a 'red hotel' elsewhere (i.e. think Peter Forsberg + 5 other players for Eric Lindros), but that is the risk you take unfortunately if you want a "guarantee" and a quicker rebuilding process.
