Re Bjorkstrand: He is just an objectively superior player to most of what we have. A two-way, 1st line player. Your understanding of the stats is not correct. It's not "deep in the mico numbers". RAPM and Isolated Impact are summations of a player's macro impact on the team, given the conditions he's played in. He has elite offensive and defensive impacts. The reason we don't have extra cap space to add the Marinos and Bjorkstrands when they appear is because management pre-allocated salary cap space elsewhere (Mikheyhev) and did not make much of an effort to clear cap space.
maybe poor choice of words, but i get what those are describing of the player. where my questions lie in terms of bringing these instances up in a trade talk and if the player is worth the trade to succeed on the team, both in value and if they are a specific upgrade.
these models are all fascinating in breaking down the player themselves, are there models that take into account teams' coaching/style systems. how can a player be compared and projected into a different team and its style. i mean granted yes, players that have positive results are likely to continue with positive results if they switch teams - but i'm curious about how this helps to determine what you have to pay versus the return on investment you will receive and if that ROI warrants moving something else you already have away. i think that's what i'm getting at.
i mean just as an off the cuff example - if you plop bjorkstrand on this team and have to take away garland (closish money) - is bjorkstrand's ROI worth the move .. versus what garland did while on this team.
See above regarding Bjorkstrand. On the RD, it's the GM's job to improve. NJ made a move that improved their RD and perhaps Allvin could have been involved in that instead. Saying, "well no one else got better" is an excuse and isn't really true - CGY got Weegar as an afterthought.
what if other teams don't like our guys as much as other teams guys. for all we know (and likely with rutherford/pittsburgh) we had an offer for marino but pittsburgh liked the other player better.
i agree though with the 'no one else got better' notion.
And that playoff "development" propelled future Canucks teams to what? *Crickets*. The individual players were young and improving/already good anyway. I don't care about being cannon fodder in the first round of the playoffs. Build a contender. The "get in and anything can happen" is a bad strategy. Two years from now the ghosts of Benning will mostly be gone, but it'll also cost much more to re-sign the current non-contending core (Horvat, Miller or a replacement, Petterson, Podkolzin, Hoglander, all need raises). Regarding the bolded, that is a very bad scenario. They need a lot of guys to improve to become real contenders.
while i tend to agree with not banking on 'anything can happen' - but the goal at this point should be making the playoffs consistently, within our situation that is a very reasonable first steps in building a contender within the confines of this organization.
yes those players will need raises, but a lot of money comes off in 2 years. you also have an outlet to move in garland. i mean in 2 years (not counting one of horvat or millers extension we have i think it's 35 or 36 million in space. hoglander will not be expensive and i can see podkolzin potentiall at a pearson like salary for a bridge.
the key is consistently churning/plugging the 4th line, 6/7 defence and backup goalie with million or less players that can contribute. it isn't easy, but not overpaying bottom guys IS easy. i do believe this management group understands that.
The team's direction, during the Benning years and now, has always been the same: Make the playoffs and hope for the best - do no try to take a step back for the benefit of future years. I do think Allvin/JR will execute this better than Benning. But it's still a bad plan.
i just don't think we are in a position this summer, this offseason coming out of benning to truly commit to one plan. you really need to see what this team is first, and that is this season.
i mean, if it goes rebuild, all our guys worth trading for other teams are young with tons of time left, i don't think 1 year kills anything but if it flips the other way and they are coached, bought in and challenge and get in you build off that.
i don't think i am necessarily disagreeing with you, i think overall i think all the one way or another debate is still premature.