Post-Game Talk: Minnesota 6, Vancouver 3: Hat-trick for Granlund. Their Granlund.

[PG Canuck]

Missed the game and was too lazy to look at the full stat sheet, so thank you. This is all I needed to know.

Really, this is probably all anyone needs to know about the Canucks.

It says a lot about this team right now.

 

[Hit the post]

It says a lot about this team right now.

Be thankful that the absolute floor of this team is 3rd last place? (as there's two runs worse - for whatever reason [eg., internal budget, etc.,] - than the Canucks)

 

[VanJack]

Could there could be a clause in Larsen's contract that guarantee's him a minimum amount of games?

Then again this is the same team that kept trodding Bartkowski out over and over.

Every year it's the same with Willie....big minutes for guys like Bartkowski, Vey and Weber, when you knew that as UFA's there wasn't a chance in the world they were ever going to be re-signed.

This year, it's Larsen, Chaput and Megna....fringe NHL'ers who just keep getting thrown over the boards...I'd be stunned if any of them were offered a contract for next year.

It's almost the way an expansion team like Vegas will be operating, except they won't keep signing these kind of guys.

 

[mathonwy]

Lest we forget:

 

[geebaan]

Lest we forget:

but its a rebuild.

 

[me2]

Lest we forget:

So you're saying there is chance we can add playoff push help.

 

[Zaddy91]

72 - 35 = 37

could be worse

 

[geebaan]

72 - 35 = 37

could be worse

you've gone from "Bennings the grestest and you guys are haters"

to

"could be worse"

Okay then

 

[tantalum]

It was nuts how much space the wild had once the entered the zone. Again and again the seas would part to a high % shot.

That's because the blue line is not actually a strength despite what Jim believes. It's not good.

 

[tantalum]

Some visuals:

Not good when almost the entirety of the opposition is above the diagonal and you are below it.

Once again dominated down low in the defensive zone:

A confusing one...essentially more red means the Wild had the most shots in the matchup and more red the canucks. Size of square is time spent in that matchup. Faded to bold is low shots per hour to high shots per hour.

Tryamkin and Larsen got absolutely hammered by the eye test and by the stats. Well essentially he domination of the Wild over the canucks is shown. Only chance the canucks had in this game is if they faced an entire lineup of the wild's 4th line.

 

[VanJack]

but its a rebuild.

If the Canucks were any other business, wouldn't the owner be scratching his head about the payroll?....Why am I maxed out on the payroll for a team that could soon be buried in lottery-land for another year?

Should I be concerned that what used to be the toughest ticket in town is now being discounted on Stub Hub and by scalpers? Is my overall business trending in the right direction?

But then you have to remember that between Sedins, Eriksson, Miller and Burrows they have almost $32m a season in salary tied up. Is this not the most under-performing payroll in the entire NHL?

 

[CanaFan]

Two options facing the Canucks:

1. Build a cap-max team as they retool on the fly, promise "being competitive", and play dull, boring hockey in an attempt to dredge up a few more wins. Attendance drops significantly during this period.

2. Build a cap-min team that loses more but quickly adds young, skilled pieces via the draft and trading vets. Team plays an uptempo, speed game which results in more goals for (and against). Team loses but games are entertaining. Attendance drops significantly during this period.


Sadly, they felt option A was the way to go for some reason.

 

[me2]

Two options facing the Canucks:

1. Build a cap-max team as they retool on the fly, promise "being competitive", and play dull, boring hockey in an attempt to dredge up a few more wins. Attendance drops significantly during this period.

2. Build a cap-min team that loses more but quickly adds young, skilled pieces via the draft and trading vets. Team plays an uptempo, speed game which results in more goals for (and against). Team loses but games are entertaining. Attendance drops significantly during this period.


Sadly, they felt option A was the way to go for some reason.

Option two wouldn't necessarily have seen a big drop off in attendance. The canucks had a lot of goodwill that can carry a team for a while. Combine that goodwill with lower ticket prices from running a cheap team and exciting young players in an up tempo style - fans would accept that. Attendance could have stayed high.

 

[CanaFan]

Option two wouldn't necessarily have seen a big drop off in attendance. The canucks had a lot of goodwill that can carry a team for a while. Combine that goodwill with lower ticket prices from running a cheap team and exciting young players in an up tempo style - fans would accept that. Attendance could have stayed high.

Certainly possible. I'm just trying to argue that in both cases a drop off in attendance *should* have been anticipated. In that case building a cap-max team that relies on making playoffs to offset the loss in revenue is the riskier and therefore stupider strategy. The low-cap, build-through-the-draft option should have made sense from Day 1 if they had been realistic and competent in their assessment of this team back in 2014. Cut costs, build with youth and speed, undersell performance, focus on "future" and building a "cup contender" someday. Signing 31 year old Loui Eriksson to a $36M contract is the opposite of what they should have done given the reality of this team last summer.