Pre-Game Talk: Are you cheering for the Canucks to Win or Lose this season?

[y2kcanucks]

Top 5 this top 5 that

If we drafted in the 8th 9th range i think we would be better off with who we get their over juolevi and co.

Its about drafting properly, especially if were out of the top 2 picks

You're seriously saying drafting 8th or 9th is better than drafting in the top 5? I absolutely cannot agree with this.

I agree that you need to draft smart and pick the right player, but that doesn't mean drafting 8th or 9th is better. Just have competent management who don't **** up their draft pick and we'd be fine.

 

[PM]

As much as I want a high pick the real reward for losing is management turnover. High picks are great but if your GM keeps blowing them you're still gonna suck. The key is to get a high pick AND a new GM to use that high pick correctly.

If we did that three years ago we could all probably start cheering for wins now instead of still hoping for an eventual rebuild years down the line.

 

[Toxic0n]

It's hard to cheer for a win when it only means a lower pick in a season that will end on Game 82 either way.

If a win felt meaningful - as in part of a season where the team was on the upswing and looking dangerous for playoffs - then 100% I'll cheer for a win.

But when it is largely meaningless - the difference between finishing with 66 points or 68 points - then it's hard to care. In fact in that scenario I'd much rather have the "success" of a higher slot going into the lottery. It may not be the cup but at least it's "something".

This describes how I feel exactly.

We all know the majority of sane fans will be on #teamtank by February, once the losses start mounting.

I just really hope Benning is gone by then, I really need a new jersey to wear to games but I promised myself I would not give a cent to this franchise while he is in charge.

 

[thepuckmonster]

I can't bring myself to actively cheer for losses, but that's just me.

However if we're going to win I want it to be done in a way that's sustainable (good underlying numbers, not Colorado of 2014 way). If we're going to lose I want to still be entertained by the kids getting time and playing a more offensive system.

 

[Shareefruck]

Unpopular opinion, but personally, I've never found it entertaining when teams sacrifice defense for offense. I'd honestly take an organized, well coached trapping team over a fire-wagon hockey type team.

First and foremost, I just want the team to play a smart, consistent, and reliable game. That's what makes it watchable for me.

 

[SgtToody]

Not completely. A lower finish still gives you a higher base pick if you don't win the lottery. We may not have won a top 3 spot last year but picking 5th still beat picking 12th.

Unfortunately, with Benning at the helm picking 5th is not guaranteed to beat picking 12th.
Although I loathe to cheer someone else's misfortune, I am looking forward to a change in management because each week, each day it is evident that this group can't plan their way out of paper bag.

 

[Shareefruck]

Unfortunately, with Benning at the helm picking 5th is not guaranteed to beat picking 12th.
Although I loathe to cheer someone else's misfortune, I am looking forward to a change in management because each week, each day it is evident that this group can't plan their way out of paper bag.

No matter how bad Benning is, and no matter how much of a guarantee it isn't, the odds are still going to be better that a high pick turns out better.

 

[jeromemorrow]

I'm cheering for them to WIN of course. Rome was not built in one day.

We got good pieces .. and we just need to slowly acclimatize the young guns into the system.

 

[vancityluongo]

Drafting 6th is not better than 5th, because if the Canucks led by Benning were drafting 6th they still wouldn't have ended up with Tkachuk because no one else was taking Juolevi 5th. Same with 8 instead of 6 in 2014 - still not getting Nylander/Ehlers.

 

[I in the Eye]

Every game, until clearly out of the playoffs (if not mathematically out, then probably out), I'm cheering for the Canucks to win. Once probably out, I'm cheering for the Canucks to lose.

This regime has blurred the line between success and failure. Not making the playoffs, by definition based on how many teams are in the league, is a failure. The Canucks would be a part of the bottom half failing group. The top half succeeds to make the playoffs, and the bottom half fails to make the playoffs. If a part of the failing group, I want the Canucks to fail spectacularly... because of greater chance to pick high (better chance to get a high end player for the future), and because of Benning and weisbrod. I think they deserve to fail spectacularly, because they've failed spectacularly, in many things they've done. The team belongs at the very bottom. But while the Canucks still have a chance to succeed (simply because time hasn't had chance to catch up to reality... where reality is, Canucks still suck... in a major way, and well into the future) I'm cheering for the Canucks to win. I want the Canucks to win, even though they won't, nor do they deserve to. I think that's the most frustrating thing as a fan... based on the moves and decisions made, the Canucks have no business succeeding, despite really wanting them to.

 

[Vancouver_2010]

I want them to lose for the next 2 years, stash as much picks as possible and that's how you rebuild.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

I expect they're going to lose a lot of games the next couple of years no matter what I want. I'm just going to follow along and see where it takes me. I am expecting a bumpy ride ride though.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I'm cheering for them to WIN of course. Rome was not built in one day.

We got good pieces .. and we just need to slowly acclimatize the young guns into the system.

When people need to keep repeating this, maybe the reality is our pieces aren't that good?

When you look at other teams around the league that have actually rebuilt, or are going through an actual rebuild, our pieces don't stack up very well.

 

[settinguptheplay]

When people need to keep repeating this, maybe the reality is our pieces aren't that good?

When you look at other teams around the league that have actually rebuilt, or are going through an actual rebuild, our pieces don't stack up very well.

What he said is actually correct. We do have some good pieces. Perhaps not as good as some other teams but that is not the claim he made.

 

[0din]

Win or lose?

I think the question should have been will you cheer at all?

I will be watching to see if Horvat continues to play as well as he has up to now.
I will be watching to see if some young guy can step it up another notch.
I will be cheering during the draft lottery.

This team will need lots of good selections if they are going to be picking 5th or 6th for the next several years. Can't have anymore of these "wait and see if they make it at all" selections. We know these selections will play in the NHL but not at the levels needed or justifying their draft position.

 

[Hit the post]

What he said is actually correct. We do have some good pieces. Perhaps not as good as some other teams but that is not the claim he made.

It truly takes some kind of "talent" to avoid having "some good pieces" if you pick 6th overall or better in three out of the last four drafts.

 

[CanaFan]

It truly takes some kind of "talent" to avoid having "some good pieces" if you pick 6th overall or better in three out of the last four drafts.

Yep. A team with a 6th, 5th, and 5th should have more to show than a rebounding bottom 6 winger and a disappointing soft non-offensive defenseman, along with a promising skilled centre. That our 23rd pick is by far a better player than either of the high picks before and after him is sad.

 

[settinguptheplay]

It truly takes some kind of "talent" to avoid having "some good pieces" if you pick 6th overall or better in three out of the last four drafts.

So what! That is not the claim that was being made. The guy simply said the Canucks had some good pieces. You haters , with your agenda, seem to be blind to this. The changing of the goalposts is a common theme among the agenda seekers. Go back and read the comment y2k originally highlighted and responded to.

 

[y2kcanucks]

So what! That is not the claim that was being made. The guy simply said the Canucks had some good pieces. You haters , with your agenda, seem to be blind to this. The changing of the goalposts is a common theme among the agenda seekers. Go back and read the comment y2k originally highlighted and responded to.

Some good pieces? Sure, okay, I guess it depends on your definition of good. I don't see a team that can come anywhere close to competing with Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Arizona in the future. You can probably even throw Colorado into that mix as they too have some great pieces (MacKinnon, Rantanen, Makar).

We have the makings of a team that might be mediocre down the road, after years of suffering at the bottom.

 

[settinguptheplay]

Some good pieces? Sure, okay, I guess it depends on your definition of good. I don't see a team that can come anywhere close to competing with Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Arizona in the future. You can probably even throw Colorado into that mix as they too have some great pieces (MacKinnon, Rantanen, Makar).

We have the makings of a team that might be mediocre down the road, after years of suffering at the bottom.

Most the teams you have listed have been bottom feeders a lot longer than Vancouver. As well as drafting higher in the draft. So it would make sense that they had "better" pieces. Again, lets not change the goalposts. No one is saying Vancouver has some elite young core. The point of contention was whether or not Vancouver had some good pieces. Which it does.

 

[Pastor Of Muppets]

Some good pieces? Sure, okay, I guess it depends on your definition of good. I don't see a team that can come anywhere close to competing with Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Arizona in the future. You can probably even throw Colorado into that mix as they too have some great pieces (MacKinnon, Rantanen, Makar).

We have the makings of a team that might be mediocre down the road, after years of suffering at the bottom.

CAL..2 playoffs in last 8 years
EDM ..3 playoffs in last 15 years
ARZ...3 playoffs in last 14 years
WIN...i playoff in last 6 years

Obviously,these teams have had a lot more practice at picking at the top of the draft.

 

[Knight53]

Some good pieces? Sure, okay, I guess it depends on your definition of good. I don't see a team that can come anywhere close to competing with Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Arizona in the future. You can probably even throw Colorado into that mix as they too have some great pieces (MacKinnon, Rantanen, Makar).

We have the makings of a team that might be mediocre down the road, after years of suffering at the bottom.

Mediocre just like Calgary, Colorado, and Arizona? They'll all win nothing.

We'll win nothing too without a franchise Centre or D-man. We need a Matthews/Eichel/Laine/Dahlin just like the teams I mentioned above.

 

[NoShowWilly]

cheering for Boeser to win the Calder.

 

[CanaFan]

CAL..2 playoffs in last 8 years
EDM ..3 playoffs in last 15 years
ARZ...3 playoffs in last 14 years
WIN...i playoff in last 6 years

Obviously,these teams have had a lot more practice at picking at the top of the draft.

Calgary doesn't really fit in there. They've picked 4, 6, and 6 in the top 10 while we've picked 5, 5, 6, and 9. They didn't have a 1st or 2nd in 2010, their 2011 pick (Baertschi) was 13th, and in 2012 they moved down from 14 to 21 and 42. They've had higher picks on average but they've hardly had "a lot more practice picking at the top of the draft." Technically we've had more practice than they have.

 

[KeninsFan]

I'm lowkey always going to cheer for the Nucks to make the playoffs.

Luckiest wilcard team to win the Cup >> #1 draft pick. Anything can happen/stars can align/lucky bounce/goalie gets hot/ etc