Vancouver Canucks Rebuild Off to Good Start

[Horse McHindu]

Ok so let's clarify then.

Are vets useful because of their "veteran-ness" i.e. experience, character, leadership, etc?

Or because they are good, effective players i.e. they compete hard, make more good plays than bad ones, etc?

This could actually get us somewhere.

Both.

I'm a little surprised that this needs clarifying?

 

[Egghead1999]

The worst thing for the Canucks rebuild would be to improve too quickly before actually drafting any star players. Following the Calgary Flames model or the St. Louis Blues model or the Nashville Predators model could simply lead to a long period of mediocrity.

what is wrong with all the models? Don't think mcdavid, matthews are in every single year draft. Teams need to draft and develop players

 

[Egghead1999]

I'm not really sure how we will get rid of those contracts early without paying for it in some way other than just dollars from the owners.

Personally I'm not really sure how the rebuild could look any worse at this point.

1) Bad long term contracts - CHECK

Even if it is only two at the moment and Sutter by itself hardly is a franchise killing contract)

....

The real problem with the bad long term contracts is that it makes the young players cannot make the team. Just tell Eriksson does not rush back and to take his time while he rehab any injuries, ya, pay him to stay away from the team and stay with his lovely family

 

[M2Beezy]

If this management somehow gets rid of Eriksson then yeah the rebuild is underway and tbh id get season tickets if they get rid of Eriksson. Heck Id buy a Linden jersey and a vintage old school Benning jersey (remember he use to play for us)

I like a lot of the direction of the rebuild but the Eriksson contract is a nightmare maybe even worse then the recapp penalty if Luongo retires

 

[Horse McHindu]

If this management somehow gets rid of Eriksson then yeah the rebuild is underway and tbh id get season tickets if they get rid of Eriksson. Heck Id buy a Linden jersey and a vintage old school Benning jersey (remember he use to play for us)

I like a lot of the direction of the rebuild but the Eriksson contract is a nightmare maybe even worse then the recapp penalty if Luongo retires

The Eriksson contract is not a nightmare. Eriksson has always had historically slow starts to his new teams. The stats back this up......and they aren't even advanced stats!

With guys like Hansen and Burrows gone, the Canucks will need more depth on the right side and so a guy like Eriksson fills a need for Vancouver.

Lastly - Eriksson's contract is a only a 6 year contract on paper. In reality, it's a 4 year contract. 31 of the 36 million will have been paid out by the end of year 4. What does this mean? At the end of year 4, Eriksson's contract will be ideal for a team looking to hit the cap floor.

 

[tantalum]

Eriksson has been on one other new team in the NHL. It's not like there is a great history to form a trend from. His first year he was on the exact same pace as his final season with the Stars...a 49 point pace. His career average was 56 points coming into this season. This years 30 point pace isn't even remotely close to those numbers. He hasn't been slow to adjust. He has been bad.

 

[CanaFan]

Both.

I'm a little surprised that this needs clarifying?

Well wouldn't an "oldie" like Smyth or Doan bring all of the experience, character, leadership, etc that Hartnell and Brouwer bring?

Why didn't that help Edmonton and Arizona stop being so bad? Why doesn't/ didn't their experience, character, and leadership for those teams help them win like it does for Hartnell in CBJ and Brower in Calgary?

I'm confused at why this factor is so inconsistent across teams. You have argued extensively that teams like Edmonton were bad not simply because they had bad players but because they lack these character veterans. Yet I see bad teams today that do have vets like you argue winning teams need. Hell even the Canucks have loaded up on vets and character players but we aren't very good.

What's going on?

 

[Horse McHindu]

Well wouldn't an "oldie" like Smyth or Doan bring all of the experience, character, leadership, etc that Hartnell and Brouwer bring?

Yes, but again, there's a difference between a 'vet' and a 'grandpa.' A vet is a guy that may be passed his prime, but can still 'bring it' and can either play close to his peak level, or can still have a major impact.

A "grandpa" is a guy that has been relegated to the 4th line or 3rd pairing defense. They still have all the 'veteran leadership', etc., but because most of these guys are in the 37-40 age demographic, they might be too old to the point where there is too much of an age gap for effective mentorship.

It's not complete black and white, but there is a difference between a 'vet' and a 'grandpa' (on a semi-related note, it's one reason why I do NOT want the twins to be re-signed when their contracts expire even if it's for substantially less money).

Grandpa's can be good to have for championship calibre teams gearing up for a long playoff run (and so they trade for said grandpa's at the trade deadline).

Why didn't that help Edmonton and Arizona stop being so bad? Why doesn't/ didn't their experience, character, and leadership for those teams help them win like it does for Hartnell in CBJ and Brower in Calgary?

Hell even the Canucks have loaded up on vets and character players but we aren't very good.

You need good young players obviously. However - just as a team can't be full of vets, a team can't be full of hair-less 19 year old kids either. The Canucks are not very good because all/most of their young players haven't reached their peak yet, while their vets are passed their primes.

I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend?

If you are deliberately trolling me however, then I tip my hat.

 

[Street Hawk]

The Eriksson contract is not a nightmare. Eriksson has always had historically slow starts to his new teams. The stats back this up......and they aren't even advanced stats!

With guys like Hansen and Burrows gone, the Canucks will need more depth on the right side and so a guy like Eriksson fills a need for Vancouver.

Lastly - Eriksson's contract is a only a 6 year contract on paper. In reality, it's a 4 year contract. 31 of the 36 million will have been paid out by the end of year 4. What does this mean? At the end of year 4, Eriksson's contract will be ideal for a team looking to hit the cap floor.

That bold part is what makes the Eriksson contract baffling, in that a so called rebuilding team who wants playoff money would shell out $31 million USD over 4 years (plus the July 1st bonus to start year 5) to a player when their team isn't that strong. That's $40 million CAD. To make more money, you can either cut costs or spend money with the hope of making money. Canucks chose the latter and aren't going to make the money back in playoff gate or increased attendance this year.

What the Canucks need, IMO, is to do the following with their vets:

Edler - have a heart to heart and discuss his future. 2 years left with a full NTC. Post expansion draft there will likely be an opportunity to move him to a team that loses a quality Dman. Would Edler be willing to waive his NTC then? Let him know that it's highly unlikely that the team offers him a contract extension when his current deal expires. With a full NTC, Edler has final say. I wouldn't propose to do anything like send him to the AHL unless he waives. That's not how I think a franchise should be run, especially not to one of their home grown guys.

Gudbranson - he gets his QO and that's all. Decide around the all-star game what to do with him. He hasn't shown to be worth a long term deal or the assets traded for him. I would lean to move him at the 2018 TDL.

Sedins - I would have been on board with moving them in the off-season, but given their drop in production from 75 to 58 and now prorated to 46 points this season, I am not sure what they would fetch in the trade market? After balancing out the contracts in a trade, what young assets would the Canucks get and what vets would they have to take back? Would those vets be good to have around a young team? Think TDL 2018 is the most logical time for them to be traded.

Scisba - hopefully he is taken in the ED as it would free up cap space next season.

Eriksson - he better regain some scoring touch. It will be an overpaid contract. My only concern about dealing him prior to year 5 is the current state of the Arizona and Carolina franchises and whether they will still be in their current markets? If you remove them, it really limits the number of other clubs who want a $2.5-$3 million per year player who has a $6 million cap hit.

Sutter - has 2 more years of a full NTC. He's useful, so long as the coach plays him as a 3C.

Miller - team needs another goalie, but it should only be on a 1 year deal. I'm sure that he misses out on his son growing up, so that could very well prompt him to take a backup role in either Anaheim or LA at a discounted rate. Vegas and Vancouver are really his closest options to be a starter to his wife in LA. But, family could be the priority. Canucks would then need to find a solid backup, otherwise could end up like St. Louis and have their new young starter bomb.

As for the twins again, I would hope that the new coach has free reign to make whatever line up combinations that he feels is the best for the club. If it means splitting them up, limiting their PP time, not giving them only premium offensive zone starts, etc. so be it. I don't think with their drop in production that the coach should play them based on what they did when they were premiere players in the league. Play them according to what they are now. If they are 40 point players, play them accordingly.

 

[mathonwy]

What rebuild? I've been told time and time again by Canucks management and media that our fanbase won't support a rebuild so clearly we aren't rebuilding.

PM... Let me ask you something...

Do you want it both ways?

 

[RandV]

Well wouldn't an "oldie" like Smyth or Doan bring all of the experience, character, leadership, etc that Hartnell and Brouwer bring?

Why didn't that help Edmonton and Arizona stop being so bad? Why doesn't/ didn't their experience, character, and leadership for those teams help them win like it does for Hartnell in CBJ and Brower in Calgary?

I'm confused at why this factor is so inconsistent across teams. You have argued extensively that teams like Edmonton were bad not simply because they had bad players but because they lack these character veterans. Yet I see bad teams today that do have vets like you argue winning teams need. Hell even the Canucks have loaded up on vets and character players but we aren't very good.

What's going on?

I'd say the specific problem in Edmonton was they basically gave the keys to the city to the kids (Eberle, Hall, RNH, Schultz) and never built a good team behind them. I could be wrong but I think Kruger mentioned at one point that he'd get calls from management telling him to make sure he played the kids. So they all got top line minutes right from the start without really earning it.

If you look at Toronto right now in comparison, they don't really have any notable 'veteran' leaders on the ice. They just have Babcock behind the bench running a balanced three lines. Matthews has the most ice time among forwards, but he's only at 17:50 a game. Marner is at 16:43 and Nylander at 16:10. The 'Edmonton approach' would be to have these guys together on the top line playing 20 minutes a game, with only mediocre players behind them.

So at the end of the day a good rebuild (aside from getting a franchise 1st overall) is more about having a high level of competence in management and coaching than any specific game plan.

 

[PM]

PM... Let me ask you something...

Do you want it both ways?

I want my cake and eat it too. But that's just cake, delicious tasty cake.

 

[Havre]

That bold part is what makes the Eriksson contract baffling, in that a so called rebuilding team who wants playoff money would shell out $31 million USD over 4 years (plus the July 1st bonus to start year 5) to a player when their team isn't that strong. That's $40 million CAD. To make more money, you can either cut costs or spend money with the hope of making money. Canucks chose the latter and aren't going to make the money back in playoff gate or increased attendance this year.

Disagree.

I can see the logic in not sinking completely. So why not pay a couple of veterans good money while you are sinking for then to get rid of them when they are no longer needed? By taking the hit financially the Canucks are if anything accelerating the process.

This is the only thing I do like with the Eriksson contract. And something a reasonably rich team like Vancouver could afford to do.

 

[CanaFan]

Yes, but again, there's a difference between a 'vet' and a 'grandpa.' A vet is a guy that may be passed his prime, but can still 'bring it' and can either play close to his peak level, or can still have a major impact.

A "grandpa" is a guy that has been relegated to the 4th line or 3rd pairing defense. They still have all the 'veteran leadership', etc., but because most of these guys are in the 37-40 age demographic, they might be too old to the point where there is too much of an age gap for effective mentorship.

It's not complete black and white, but there is a difference between a 'vet' and a 'grandpa' (on a semi-related note, it's one reason why I do NOT want the twins to be re-signed when their contracts expire even if it's for substantially less money).

Grandpa's can be good to have for championship calibre teams gearing up for a long playoff run (and so they trade for said grandpa's at the trade deadline).




You need good young players obviously. However - just as a team can't be full of vets, a team can't be full of hair-less 19 year old kids either. The Canucks are not very good because all/most of their young players haven't reached their peak yet, while their vets are passed their primes.

I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend?

If you are deliberately trolling me however, then I tip my hat.

So it sounds to me like the biggest difference between Arizona and Columbus is not the "intangibles" of their vets - since both teams have them - but the quality of players and talent on the ice?

Doesn't that conflict with your previous manifesto's about the value of vets and intangibles and how it was this lack that doomed Edmonton to a half decade of suck?

 

[CanaFan]

I'd say the specific problem in Edmonton was they basically gave the keys to the city to the kids (Eberle, Hall, RNH, Schultz) and never built a good team behind them. I could be wrong but I think Kruger mentioned at one point that he'd get calls from management telling him to make sure he played the kids. So they all got top line minutes right from the start without really earning it.

If you look at Toronto right now in comparison, they don't really have any notable 'veteran' leaders on the ice. They just have Babcock behind the bench running a balanced three lines. Matthews has the most ice time among forwards, but he's only at 17:50 a game. Marner is at 16:43 and Nylander at 16:10. The 'Edmonton approach' would be to have these guys together on the top line playing 20 minutes a game, with only mediocre players behind them.

So at the end of the day a good rebuild (aside from getting a franchise 1st overall) is more about having a high level of competence in management and coaching than any specific game plan.

Pretty much my thoughts too. I find Edmonton gets held up as an example of "rebuilds don't work" or "you can't give kids too much too soon" which, IMO, is a misreading of the situation. Edmonton drafted high in the draft but were a surprisingly untalented team. Outside of the Halls, RNH's, etc they really weren't adding talent anywhere else, in particular their defense and in goal. The problem wasn't that they were rebuilding, the problem was they were only rebuilding with one-dimensional forwards. Throw in some bad coaching choices, some bad choices in the draft (esp RNH and Yak) and a culture of celebrating offense only due to their 80's roots and you've got the recipe for a very bad team.

 

[PG Canuck]

Hall was on a podcast and said it was brutal playing during those years because they had a terrible defense to help these kids along. This kids made a mistake and they were pinned in their own end or scored on.

It was a brutally built team behind those talented players, and when Canucks fans yell for a tank/rebuild, that is not what we are clamouring for.

 

[VanJack]

Finally caught up with the HF article.....it's a laudable "spin" on the so-called 'rebuild'....but misses the mark pretty badly.....I have no idea what Dahlen and Goldobin will become.....but the teams which traded them, did so for a reason..so only time will tell.

Otherwise, a pretty dispiriting year in the Canuck land, with the high degree of certainty the team won't be much better next year....problem the Canucks have is that the rest of the Western Conference isn't a stationary target....Jets, Minny, Oilers, Flames and even the 'Yotes have great players coming or already in the lineup.

The Canucks could be 20 percent better next year, and still no higher in the standings....and looking at the prospect pool, the only guy who's taken a major leap forward in his development is Gaudette....everybody else basically treading water imo.

But after back-back-back lottery seasons, they don't really have much choice...it's a 'rebuild', pure and simple.