Does this team lack secondary scoring?

[Vankiller Whale]

Those are steep acquisition costs. And you can't get a player like Hossa at that cap hit any longer anyways so it's not something this team can pursue.

As for the trade route, Eriksson cost Tyler Seguin, Richards cost Schenn and Simmonds and Carter cost a first round pick and Johnson (not a player I like but obviously still marketable to some).

As for Sharp he had 15 career points in 60ish games, then played a season and a half in Chicago before breaking out in a big way. Not really a ready made secondary scorer in the same mould as the rest.

The Canucks don't really have the kinds of assets to make those moves at this point given the context of rebuilding the organization's depth. At the end of one of those rebuilds franchises can often part with a young NHLer with promise and a high draft pick without losing much depth but we are not there.

I don't see what waiting will accomplish though. For every year we wait for prospects to develop and help fill out depth positions the Sedins and Luongo get a year closer to inevitable decline. I think our roster right now is one impact forward away from being a legitimate contender. Even if we make a lesser move, like 2nd + B prospect for Cammalleri or something, it would do a lot to improve our chances without sacrificing much. Even trading a significant package for someone like Vanek at the deadline we will still have plenty of prospect depth. There's no way that we'll be able to fit all of Schroeder, Horvat, Gaunce, Jensen, Shinkaruk, plus whoever we pick in 2014 on our roster in a contributing role, so it makes sense to try and convert some quantity into a quality player that will help address our need for scoring.

 

[BeardyCanuck03]

Yes and No.

The past couple seasons they have lacked secondary scoring.

This season it remains to be seen. If the Kassian with the twins and Burrows/Kesler experiment works I don't see secondary scoring being an issue. Specially if Booth can score at the rate he did in his first season here (20 goal pace).

Basically IF the lineup works the way Torts/Gillis have designed it to, no secondary scoring shouldn't be an issue.

 

[dave babych returns]

I don't see what waiting will accomplish though. For every year we wait for prospects to develop and help fill out depth positions the Sedins and Luongo get a year closer to inevitable decline. I think our roster right now is one impact forward away from being a legitimate contender.

So the window theory. Ok, I don't really agree that's the best way to proceed so it's basically "agree to disagree" territory.

Even if we make a lesser move, like 2nd + B prospect for Cammalleri or something, it would do a lot to improve our chances without sacrificing much.

Yeah I mean we'll see what it takes to get Mike Cammalleri at the trade deadline I guess. A 2nd and a C prospect got us Derek Roy this year, an undersized center (where being undersized is much worse IMO) having a "meh" season..

And shedding a couple of assets at a trade deadline here, draft day deal there, etc.. is exactly how we ended up in a position of needing improvement from within (especially to put us in a better cap position) now.

So yeah, one deal like that doesn't hurt too much. We just made one and it wasn't the end of the world, it didn't give us a lengthy playoff run either. If we keep going to the well on those types of improvements it's just going to hurt our ability to add talent from within.

Even trading a significant package for someone like Vanek at the deadline we will still have plenty of prospect depth. There's no way that we'll be able to fit all of Schroeder, Horvat, Gaunce, Jensen, Shinkaruk, plus whoever we pick in 2014 on our roster in a contributing role, so it makes sense to try and convert some quantity into a quality player that will help address our need for scoring.

Well all of those players will probably not pan out like people hope - and given you have to move a prospect your trade partner actually likes, it's unlikely that we're going to deal a bust and a first rounder, keep four of those players and have them all turn into core pieces for this franchise.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter that we don't have six spots open for those five players and that draft pick next year or even the year after.. Horvat and Shinkaruk could conceivably not even turn pro for two more seasons, then spend a year or two in the AHL. So we're talking about rosters in 2015, 2016 that will benefit from their presence - you can't say "we might as well start trading guys" because you can't see them fitting next year.

 

[94eleven]

A better metric would be the G/G with the top line on the bench. If the Sedins set up a defenseman (or someone like Hansen or Kassian for that matter) for a goal, it's hardly fair to consider that anything other than a top line goal. H. Sedin is probably the best proxy for that since he is the center and has played every single game, so here's the Canucks' output without H. Sedin on the ice:

12-13: 1.33 G/G
11-12: 1.62 G/G
10-11: 1.53 G/G
09-10: 1.64 G/G
08-09: 1.66 G/G


Decent, though last year was pretty bad. The real problem is what has happened to the bottom 3 lines in the playoffs the last few years:


12-13: 1.00 G/G
11-12: 0.40 G/G
10-11: 1.08 G/G
09-10: 2.08 G/G
08-09: 1.40 G/G


As a comparison, here's last year's Chicago team with Toews on the bench:

Regular season: 1.70 G/G

Playoffs: 1.65 G/G


So the Canucks' depth scoring hasn't been hopelessly bad in the regular season, but it sure has been in the playoffs.

Well done, you are correct that is a much better metric. I think it shows that the four seasons prior to last Vancouver received enough secondary scoring to be a top-5 team in the league in that respect.

Playoffs of course is another story and if we get the amount of secondary scoring in 10-11 that we did in 09-10 (4 series vs. 2 of course) the Canucks likely win the cup. The question will be whether last season's dip was due to the Kesler and Booth injuries or if it is the start of a decline that the current roster cannot fix.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

So the window theory. Ok, I don't really agree that's the best way to proceed so it's basically "agree to disagree" territory.

Yeah I mean we'll see what it takes to get Mike Cammalleri at the trade deadline I guess. A 2nd and a C prospect got us Derek Roy this year, an undersized center (where being undersized is much worse IMO) having a "meh" season..

And shedding a couple of assets at a trade deadline here, draft day deal there, etc.. is exactly how we ended up in a position of needing improvement from within (especially to put us in a better cap position) now.

So yeah, one deal like that doesn't hurt too much. We just made one and it wasn't the end of the world, it didn't give us a lengthy playoff run either. If we keep going to the well on those types of improvements it's just going to hurt our ability to add talent from within.

Cammalleri is almost the exact same size as Roy, just for the record. And if we had re-signed Roy then I would have done that deal again every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Could you please specify which trades are the ones that put us in whatever situation you think we're in now, though?

Well all of those players will probably not pan out like people hope - and given you have to move a prospect your trade partner actually likes, it's unlikely that we're going to deal a bust and a first rounder, keep four of those players and have them all turn into core pieces for this franchise.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter that we don't have six spots open for those five players and that draft pick next year or even the year after.. Horvat and Shinkaruk could conceivably not even turn pro for two more seasons, then spend a year or two in the AHL. So we're talking about rosters in 2015, 2016 that will benefit from their presence - you can't say "we might as well start trading guys" because you can't see them fitting next year.

By the time we get to 2015 or 2016, we will have had a lot more drafts, likely picked up a few gems in the later rounds, signed guys like Tanev or Eriksson, to go along with our current prospects, even after trading one of them. If we were, for example, to move Jensen/Gaunce + 1st for Vanek(with the intention of re-signing him, of course) then that gives us likely 5+ years of being a top contender while still having one of Jensen/Gaunce, Horvat, Shinkaruk, Kassian, Schroeder to help supplement or forward group as well as anyone else we might draft over the next half decade or so.

What people see as "sacrificing the future" is really nothing of the sort.

 

[NuxFan09]

I think it will be an issue this year. Burrows and Kesler don't really work as an offensive pair so I imagine either Burrows will be back on the 1st line with the Sedins soon enough or Torts will keep him with Kesler and that line just won't score as much.

Either way, I was really hoping Gillis would bring in a 2nd line scorer but he didn't. We'll have to see if someone like Kassian or one of the kids (Jensen, Shinkaruk) can step up and make a significant offensive impact in their rookie year. Another big factor is Booth, too. If he can't be somewhat of a force this season than that 2nd line might be a disaster.

 

[dave babych returns]

Cammalleri is almost the exact same size as Roy, just for the record. And if we had re-signed Roy then I would have done that deal again every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Could you please specify which trades are the ones that put us in whatever situation you think we're in now, though?

So either you're not reading my posts or this is not an actual discussion (and you're just quoting my posts in order to make points either to yourself or for the benefit of other posters here).

Cammalleri is about the same size as Roy who is a center, where I will reiterate, "being undersized is much worse IMO." You can disagree but we all know roughly how tall those two players are.

As for the trades which have hindered our ability to draft and develop players to flesh out our prospect pipeline..

Steve Bernier for a 2nd and 3rd round pick
Keith Ballard for Bernier, Grabner and a 1st round pick
Andrew Alberts for a 3rd round pick
Max Lapierre for a 3rd round pick
Pahlsson for a 4th
Higgins for a 3rd (although we got that one back in the Booth deal)

That's under Gillis alone and doesn't even address the fact that our depth situation the past couple of seasons was made worse by scads of 2nd and 3rd round picks dealt over the four drafts prior to 2008.

Are any of these franchise breakers, of course not, I'd make several of them over again. But if you want to build more effectively from within eventually you have to throw the brakes on this kind of team building.

By the time we get to 2015 or 2016, we will have had a lot more drafts, likely picked up a few gems in the later rounds, signed guys like Tanev or Eriksson, to go along with our current prospects, even after trading one of them. If we were, for example, to move Jensen/Gaunce + 1st for Vanek(with the intention of re-signing him, of course) then that gives us likely 5+ years of being a top contender while still having one of Jensen/Gaunce, Horvat, Shinkaruk, Kassian, Schroeder to help supplement or forward group as well as anyone else we might draft over the next half decade or so.

What people see as "sacrificing the future" is really nothing of the sort.

No, it's not. It's just undermining it - but that's hard to argue against so I can understand the straw man approach.

Anyway I could have summed it up with "I don't agree with the 'window' theory, let's agree to disagree" and should have, judging by your other posts here you don't like to let go of an argument even when both sides are firmly entrenched and I don't care to spend hours going over the minutiae of each other's position on this topic.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

So either you're not reading my posts or this is not an actual discussion (and you're just quoting my posts in order to make points either to yourself or for the benefit of other posters here).

Cammalleri is about the same size as Roy who is a center, where I will reiterate, "being undersized is much worse IMO." You can disagree but we all know roughly how tall those two players are.

As for the trades which have hindered our ability to draft and develop players to flesh out our prospect pipeline..

Steve Bernier for a 2nd and 3rd round pick
Keith Ballard for Bernier, Grabner and a 1st round pick
Andrew Alberts for a 3rd round pick
Max Lapierre for a 3rd round pick
Pahlsson for a 4th
Higgins for a 3rd (although we got that one back in the Booth deal)

That's under Gillis alone and doesn't even address the fact that our depth situation the past couple of seasons was made worse by scads of 2nd and 3rd round picks dealt over the four drafts prior to 2008.

Are any of these franchise breakers, of course not, I'd make several of them over again. But if you want to build more effectively from within eventually you have to throw the brakes on this kind of team building.

No, it's not. It's just undermining it - but that's hard to argue against so I can understand the straw man approach.

Anyway I could have summed it up with "I don't agree with the 'window' theory, let's agree to disagree" and should have, judging by your other posts here you don't like to let go of an argument even when both sides are firmly entrenched and I don't care to spend hours going over the minutiae of each other's position on this topic.

What makes you think our ability to build from within has been hindered though? Yes we've traded some picks, but how many of those traded picks are effective NHL players? Right now we have Henrik, Daniel, Kesler, Burrows, Edler, Bieksa, Hansen, Tanev as NHL regulars we've developed, as well as Schroeder, Kassian, and Corrado very close to being ones, as well as our prospect pool. What were you expecting us to have developed that would make us a better team? At what point do you say that what we have developed so far is "effective" enough that we can make outside acquisitions to help push us over the top?

 

[Wisp]

TBH I felt spending the picks the way we have been leading up to 2011 and 2012 and even 2013 was appropriate in order to support a contending team with Stanley Cup hopes.

But now we're at a sensitive juncture in the franchise where that has to stop. Where we could really be in Calgary territory if we're not smart with our picks in regards to drafting.

 

[dave babych returns]

What makes you think our ability to build from within has been hindered though? Yes we've traded some picks, but how many of those traded picks are effective NHL players? Right now we have Henrik, Daniel, Kesler, Burrows, Edler, Bieksa, Hansen, Tanev as NHL regulars we've developed, as well as Schroeder, Kassian, and Corrado very close to being ones, as well as our prospect pool. What were you expecting us to have developed that would make us a better team? At what point do you say that what we have developed so far is "effective" enough that we can make outside acquisitions to help push us over the top?

What makes me think the Canucks have been hindered? I just spelled it out man, Mike Gillis has traded away a whole draft's worth of picks and even then I'd say he's done better than his predecessors in terms of getting values out of those trades..

We have done okay despite those deals but it's pretty clear that with extra picks we could have extra players in the organization, could have had more ability to take risk along the way and perhaps net more high potential players, etc..

As for when we can make a push to get over the top - I don't know. I prefer "not now" and you prefer "now," what's the point of arguing about it.

For now I think a season of restocking and of affording opportunity to the players in the system is in order, and see where things stand after - maybe another season of the same.

TBH I felt spending the picks the way we have been leading up to 2011 and 2012 and even 2013 was appropriate in order to support a contending team with Stanley Cup hopes.

But now we're at a sensitive juncture in the franchise where that has to stop. Where we could really be in Calgary territory if we're not smart with our picks in regards to drafting.

Yeah I agree.. I don't think the "Calgary territory" thing is really a risk right now but half a decade (more) of those deals and you're probably right.

 

[Bleach Clean]

So either you're not reading my posts or this is not an actual discussion (and you're just quoting my posts in order to make points either to yourself or for the benefit of other posters here).

This seems strangely familiar...

Cammalleri is about the same size as Roy who is a center, where I will reiterate, "being undersized is much worse IMO." You can disagree but we all know roughly how tall those two players are.

As for the trades which have hindered our ability to draft and develop players to flesh out our prospect pipeline..

Steve Bernier for a 2nd and 3rd round pick
Keith Ballard for Bernier, Grabner and a 1st round pick
Andrew Alberts for a 3rd round pick
Max Lapierre for a 3rd round pick
Pahlsson for a 4th
Higgins for a 3rd (although we got that one back in the Booth deal)

That's under Gillis alone and doesn't even address the fact that our depth situation the past couple of seasons was made worse by scads of 2nd and 3rd round picks dealt over the four drafts prior to 2008.

Are any of these franchise breakers, of course not, I'd make several of them over again. But if you want to build more effectively from within eventually you have to throw the brakes on this kind of team building.

No, it's not. It's just undermining it - but that's hard to argue against so I can understand the straw man approach.

Anyway I could have summed it up with "I don't agree with the 'window' theory, let's agree to disagree" and should have, judging by your other posts here you don't like to let go of an argument even when both sides are firmly entrenched and I don't care to spend hours going over the minutiae of each other's position on this topic.

Excellent avoidance of contesting the notion that undermines, but not does not dispute. Would that I could go back in time and apply that to my own posts and save myself a ton of time.

As to bleeding picks - Someone posted that the Canucks have had the least amount of top90 picks overall during his tenure... Considering they usually draft late as well, that's not a combination that lends itself to producing talent at the same rate that other franchises can. It's no wonder they aren't getting surprise pushes from their draft prospects, and why Gillis comments that he is now even more focused on the young players.

Frequency is ultra important in drafting.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

What makes me think the Canucks have been hindered? I just spelled it out man, Mike Gillis has traded away a whole draft's worth of picks and even then I'd say he's done better than his predecessors in terms of getting values out of those trades..

We have done okay despite those deals but it's pretty clear that with extra picks we could have extra players in the organization, could have had more ability to take risk along the way and perhaps net more high potential players, etc..

I think you're seriously overrating the value of those picks. Yes we traded away a whole draft's worth of pick over the course of 5 years. And the results we've gotten far exceed the players we didn't draft. Outside of the first round or so, the odds are extremely unlikely you get any sort of NHLer, let alone one that will actively contribute.

We have a very solid core of players we drafted ourselves. For example, Boston's core players that they developed themselves are Bergeron, Marchand, Lucic, and Krejci. Is that really any better than what we've drafted? I think you have unrealistic expectations as to how many players we should be drafting, with or without the traded picks.

As for when we can make a push to get over the top - I don't know. I prefer "not now" and you prefer "now," what's the point of arguing about it.

For now I think a season of restocking and of affording opportunity to the players in the system is in order, and see where things stand after - maybe another season of the same.

If not now, when? What are you waiting to see before we decide to start addressing glaring needs, such as scoring?

 

[arttk]

So either you're not reading my posts or this is not an actual discussion (and you're just quoting my posts in order to make points either to yourself or for the benefit of other posters here).

Cammalleri is about the same size as Roy who is a center, where I will reiterate, "being undersized is much worse IMO." You can disagree but we all know roughly how tall those two players are.

As for the trades which have hindered our ability to draft and develop players to flesh out our prospect pipeline..

Steve Bernier for a 2nd and 3rd round pick
Keith Ballard for Bernier, Grabner and a 1st round pick
Andrew Alberts for a 3rd round pick
Max Lapierre for a 3rd round pick
Pahlsson for a 4th
Higgins for a 3rd (although we got that one back in the Booth deal)

That's under Gillis alone and doesn't even address the fact that our depth situation the past couple of seasons was made worse by scads of 2nd and 3rd round picks dealt over the four drafts prior to 2008.

Are any of these franchise breakers, of course not, I'd make several of them over again. But if you want to build more effectively from within eventually you have to throw the brakes on this kind of team building.



No, it's not. It's just undermining it - but that's hard to argue against so I can understand the straw man approach.

Anyway I could have summed it up with "I don't agree with the 'window' theory, let's agree to disagree" and should have, judging by your other posts here you don't like to let go of an argument even when both sides are firmly entrenched and I don't care to spend hours going over the minutiae of each other's position on this topic.

Theoretically even if kept those draft picks in the last 5 years, it's really unlikely even in the best case scenario that we would have any meaning roster contribution from them until this year considering draft picks usually take 4-5 years to get into a lineup. It is also debatable whether or not we would've done as well without Higgins, Lapierre not to mention having those players signed at a lower price gave us more money to use elsewhere.
The real problem is that in the last few years, we had almost ZERO contribution from the 05-08 draft since any picks made then should have been getting into the lineup between 08-12.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Theoretically even if kept those draft picks in the last 5 years, it's really unlikely even in the best case scenario that we would have any meaning roster contribution from them until this year considering draft picks usually take 4-5 years to get into a lineup. It is also debatable whether or not we would've done as well without Higgins, Lapierre not to mention having those players signed at a lower price gave us more money to use elsewhere.
The real problem is that in the last few years, we had almost ZERO contribution from the 05-08 draft since any picks made then should have been getting into the lineup between 08-12.

Well I think the remark is that it just continues the trend. From 05-08, almost zero contribution. Gillis then trades depth picks to get depth players to compensate, which then ensures further zero contribution. They need to stop the cycle.

Besides, being regarded as a team with the least amount of top90 picks in entire tenure isn't good. I wish I could find that post.

 

[arttk]

Well I think the remark is that it just continues the trend. From 05-08, almost zero contribution. Gillis then trades depth picks to get depth players to compensate, which then ensures further zero contribution. They need to stop the cycle.

Besides, being regarded as a team with the least amount of top90 picks in entire tenure isn't good. I wish I could find that post.

Well I think we are bucking the trend now. We just need to give more opportunities to players like Kassian, Schroeder, Corrado, maybe even Jensen/Shinkaruk. If anyone of them fills a roster spot, then we will have less spots to fill through trade or FA.

There are some posters who like to complain that those roster spots should be filled with FA signings or through some mythical trade and then at the same time complain that we don't have young kids coming through.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Well I think we are bucking the trend now. We just need to give more opportunities to players like Kassian, Schroeder, Corrado, maybe even Jensen/Shinkaruk. If anyone of them fills a roster spot, then we will have less spots to fill through trade or FA.

There are some posters who like to complain that those roster spots should be filled with FA signings or through some mythical trade and then at the same time complain that we don't have young kids coming through.

I don't know who that references? The second paragraph I mean.

The depth picks increase the speed by which the pipeline advances to the pros. As a whole. Right now, it's been an arduous process of waiting for those 1st round picks (primarily) to secure a spot. With little else behind them (Corrado being the main exception). That would not need to take place if we had one or two 2nd round picks progress well from 2008 to 2012. Or a 3rd round pick advance quickly. In a sense, I hope they do buck the trend, but it hasn't really happened to this point.

They need to retain more of their picks until we see that cycle being broken. After they are no longer reliant on depth picks for depth fixes. Once that happens, I think the team would more readily trade away its surplus.

 

[mossey3535]

A better metric would be the G/G with the top line on the bench. If the Sedins set up a defenseman (or someone like Hansen or Kassian for that matter) for a goal, it's hardly fair to consider that anything other than a top line goal. H. Sedin is probably the best proxy for that since he is the center and has played every single game, so here's the Canucks' output without H. Sedin on the ice:

12-13: 1.33 G/G
11-12: 1.62 G/G
10-11: 1.53 G/G
09-10: 1.64 G/G
08-09: 1.66 G/G


Decent, though last year was pretty bad. The real problem is what has happened to the bottom 3 lines in the playoffs the last few years:


12-13: 1.00 G/G
11-12: 0.40 G/G
10-11: 1.08 G/G
09-10: 2.08 G/G
08-09: 1.40 G/G


As a comparison, here's last year's Chicago team with Toews on the bench:

Regular season: 1.70 G/G

Playoffs: 1.65 G/G


So the Canucks' depth scoring hasn't been hopelessly bad in the regular season, but it sure has been in the playoffs.

Nice stats!

I don't think we will lack secondary scoring if there is a simple, attacking system that the less skilled guys can rely on. You look at Boston, yes they have a lot of talent on the bottom lines but it's their aggressive forecheck and forcing turnovers that leads to a lot of juicy scoring chances for them.

I don't think you need more personnel because by definition your bottom 6 is going to have issues scoring.

 

[arttk]

I don't know who that references? The second paragraph I mean.

The depth picks increase the speed by which the pipeline advances to the pros. As a whole. Right now, it's been an arduous process of waiting for those 1st round picks (primarily) to secure a spot. With little else behind them (Corrado being the main exception). That would not need to take place if we had one or two 2nd round picks progress well from 2008 to 2012. Or a 3rd round pick advance quickly. In a sense, I hope they do buck the trend, but it hasn't really happened to this point.

They need to retain more of their picks until we see that cycle being broken. After they are no longer reliant on depth picks for depth fixes. Once that happens, I think the team would more readily trade away its surplus.

Not you

I agree with you mostly in theory but then in reality, the situation forces your hands. In the last few years, the club has been in a spot where we have been really really good and it made sense to trade away some lower picks to get that extra push. Even MG has admitted that he didn't expect the club to be this good this soon and he had to do something to increase their chances because he owe it to the players (and we did get to game7 right?). So for example, what happens if at this trade deadline, we are like top 1/2 in the conference, should we just stand pat and hold on to our picks or make a trade to give ourselves a better chance? It's not an easy decision.

I think from this point on, we will really see a youth push. This year will be Kassian, Schroeder, Corrado, Lack. Next year will be Jensen, Shinkaruk, Horvat. Maybe sometime soon we'll see Gaunce, Anderson/Tommernes ? And then hopefully Cassels, Subban in 4 years time. The thing is hopefully we will give them full opportunity before bringing players through FA/trade.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Not you

I agree with you mostly in theory but then in reality, the situation forces your hands. In the last few years, the club has been in a spot where we have been really really good and it made sense to trade away some lower picks to get that extra push. Even MG has admitted that he didn't expect the club to be this good this soon and he had to do something to increase their chances because he owe it to the players (and we did get to game7 right?). So for example, what happens if at this trade deadline, we are like top 1/2 in the conference, should we just stand pat and hold on to our picks or make a trade to give ourselves a better chance? It's not an easy decision.

I think from this point on, we will really see a youth push. This year will be Kassian, Schroeder, Corrado, Lack. Next year will be Jensen, Shinkaruk, Horvat. Maybe sometime soon we'll see Gaunce, Anderson/Tommernes ? And then hopefully Cassels, Subban in 4 years time. The thing is hopefully we will give them full opportunity before bringing players through FA/trade.

Agree with the last bit. Give the kids a shot before shoehorning a big FA/trade. As you may have guessed, I'm not one for dealing picks to bring in high salaried talent.

Yup, I understand, the club would have been questioned if they didn't trade those depth picks for immediate help. No team had won more games over a 4.5 year span. Now though, with the two recent 1st round losses, the impetus is much less. A lot will be determined by how good they are though, of that we both agree.

 

[arttk]

Agree with the last bit. Give the kids a shot before shoehorning a big FA/trade. As you may have guessed, I'm not one for dealing picks to bring in high salaried talent.

Yup, I understand, the club would have been questioned if they didn't trade those depth picks for immediate help. No team had won more games over a 4.5 year span. Now though, with the two recent 1st round losses, the impetus is much less. A lot will be determined by how good they are though, of that we both agree.

I think this is also the reason why we didn't sign anyone significant FA this offseason. This team is not one FA signing from winning the cup (and we have cap room for like ONE signing), nor are we one signing away from missing the playoffs. Might as well play it out. If by the trade deadline, we only have one spot that needs to be filled, we can put all that 2.x mil ( 6+mil then) and maybe a 2nd or something into one player. If by then we sill have like 2-3 spots that needs to be filled, might as well just wait till the offseason because there is no way we will have enough assets to fill that many holes.

 

[me2]

As for the trades which have hindered our ability to draft and develop players to flesh out our prospect pipeline..

Steve Bernier for a 2nd and 3rd round pick
Keith Ballard for Bernier, Grabner and a 1st round pick
Andrew Alberts for a 3rd round pick
Max Lapierre for a 3rd round pick
Pahlsson for a 4th
Higgins for a 3rd (although we got that one back in the Booth deal)

That's under Gillis alone and doesn't even address the fact that our depth situation the past couple of seasons was made worse by scads of 2nd and 3rd round picks dealt over the four drafts prior to 2008.

Are any of these franchise breakers, of course not, I'd make several of them over again. But if you want to build more effectively from within eventually you have to throw the brakes on this kind of team building.

I don't agree with that list. There are only two that threaten the depth

* 2nd for Roy. Pick for a rental.
* Pahlsson for a 4th. Pick for a rental. It's a 4th, meh.
* Ballard fail train.

As for the rest, I'd consider them decent use of picks because we got extended us out of them

* Bernier was a young player. So pick for prospect.
* More use from Alberts than the average 85-90th pick 3rd rounder.
* Same with Lapierre for a 3rd round pick
* Higgins for a 3rd, tremendous value

==========================

At the end of the day it's only the Ballard that gutted us, Roy to a much lesser extent.

 

[Win One Before I Die]

Definitely. What I hope is that if Booth struggles or is injured yet again. Gillis looks to address this with actual help, whether it be internally should one of the kids exceed expectations or by chasing Vanek or Cammalleri. Hell, we should consider the latter regardless. The past couple years we have entered the playoffs on a hope and a prayer. I'd rather not continue the cycle.



One game, bro.

Try all last season when they played together. It just doesnt work like the days when they were checkers and not offense.

 

[MS]

I don't agree with that list. There are only two that threaten the depth

* 2nd for Roy. Pick for a rental.
* Pahlsson for a 4th. Pick for a rental. It's a 4th, meh.
* Ballard fail train.

As for the rest, I'd consider them decent use of picks because we got extended us out of them

* Bernier was a young player. So pick for prospect.
* More use from Alberts than the average 85-90th pick 3rd rounder.
* Same with Lapierre for a 3rd round pick
* Higgins for a 3rd, tremendous value

==========================

At the end of the day it's only the Ballard that gutted us, Roy to a much lesser extent.

Agreed with this.

Almost all of those trades were good moves that you make 10 times out of 10 when you're a contending team. Even the Ballard deal made sense if Ballard's career didn't go unexpectedly into the toilet - the bigger problem with that move was not cutting our losses after the first year.

Only move I really have a problem with was Pahlsson for two 4ths. Pahlsson was a shadow of his former self by that point, on his way out of the league, and just didn't bring enough to the table. To trade two picks for him hurt.

Getting players you can keep under team control for non-#1 draft picks is almost always a great deal. I'd happily trade our #2 and #3 picks every single year if the players we got for those picks stayed on our roster for 3-4 years each.

 

[arsmaster*]

I don't agree with that list. There are only two that threaten the depth

* 2nd for Roy. Pick for a rental.
* Pahlsson for a 4th. Pick for a rental. It's a 4th, meh.
* Ballard fail train.

As for the rest, I'd consider them decent use of picks because we got extended us out of them

* Bernier was a young player. So pick for prospect.
* More use from Alberts than the average 85-90th pick 3rd rounder.
* Same with Lapierre for a 3rd round pick
* Higgins for a 3rd, tremendous value

==========================

At the end of the day it's only the Ballard that gutted us, Roy to a much lesser extent.

Ballard trade didn't gut anything though. We lost a chance at a late 1st. Big whoop. Grabner was as good as gone. Yeah it would have been nice to add a Justin Faulk, Tyler Toffoli or a Charlie Coyle, but at the time Ballard was a highly sought after legit top 4 defensman under team control for a few years at 27 years old (generally regarded as entering the prime age for defensman).

I agree with you. The only one that really, really chaps my ass is the Roy deal. Everyone and their dog knew last years team wasn't a Derek Roy away from winning the cup....why even make the deal? Not a big fan of K-Conn, so that loss wasn't that bad...but look what San Jose did, they sold high and bought low....I though we should have done the same.

I'm a big prospect fan, so looking at the players we could have had with that 2nd, knowing we weren't a Roy away from anything just upsets me...same as the two players selected with the 4th's for Pahlsson.

 

[BoHorvatFan]

We dont have a single goal from a Mike Gillis acquired forward in two playoff years. he inherited the top guys the secondary guys re his responsibility.

The answer of course is Brad Richardson or a prospect.