Not really. Early 90's team under Quinn had just as much reg season success and a similar run to the cup. WCE team in 2002-2004 was nearly as "successful". People let the PTs influence their perception of this era too much. Ya it's a nice accomplishment, but doesn't clearly put this "era" ahead of those others for me. Lots of reg season success and still no cup. Seems about the same ...
opendoor
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2006
- 11,719
- 1,403
Yeah, I don't know about that. Here's the team's league ranking by year:
90-91: 17th
91-92: 4th
92-93: 7th
93-94: 14th
01-02: 13th
02-03: 6th
03-04: 7th
08-09: 7th
09-10: 5th
10-11: 1st
11-12: 1st
12-13: 7th
There's really no comparison.
Lonny Bohonos
Registered User
You also forgot to add in the Canucks cal situation. Getting rid of Ballard, Booth and Raymond basically allows them to field a team by filling in the missing spots with minimum wage guys. If Luongo goes, that would create some savings to the extent they don't have to take back any bad salary in return.
But there will not be any real money to spend save trading some core pieces.
Obviously not, but here are the main points of delineation that I think make sense:
Horrible team - out of the playoffs by November (fan feels: Depressed, uninterested)
Competitive team - miss the playoffs but in it until the end (fan feels: excitement, sense of promise, disappointed)
Good team - makes playoffs, has a chance to win a round (fan feels: excitement, proud of his team, looks forward to next year)
Cup contender - makes playoffs with expectation to go a few rounds (fan feels: excitement, anticipation, disappointment if it doesn't happen)
Cup winner - nuff said
I basically put the 92-95 and 2002-2004 Canucks in the Good team-to-Cup contender category. 2009 and 2010 were also in the Good team while 2011-2012 we were in the Cup contender category. This year we were more in the Good team category.
To me those are the main 'levels' that teams are at and impact fans' enjoyment and expectations. Finishing 1st or 5th OA is more just different shades of grey really. Ultimately all of these 'eras' were fairly comparable. To call the Gillis era 'by far the best' era is incorrect, or shows you are maybe just a recent fan ...
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
10 people can watch the same game and come up with 10 different interpretations. 'Watching the game' is **** because it depends heavily on the watchers ability to interpret the game, something that's very hard to quantify itself. Especially if it's just a bunch of people on a message board.
Stat's themselves aren't perfect and people can twist them how they will, but at least the same stats are there for everyone to see.
You guys keep mentioning Ottawa as a team that re-tooled, but that isn't exactly accurate. Ottawa was actually in the third year of trying "re-tool" the team after their Stanley Cup Finals appearance, when they decided to blow things up. Ottawa got hit with a HUGE amount of injuries and fell apart. The coach was bad and the team needed a change. The core was getting older and competing for the playoffs wasn't an option anymore.
Ottawa TRIED to blow it up but were forced into a another re-tool because of various issues: Some guys just didn't want to go (Alfredsson and Phillips), while others needed to be kept to make minimum salary or because their contracts were too long (Gonchar and Kuba) to make them tradable. In the end, they were forced to retool and the veteran guys they kept ended up turning it around (Gonchar, Phillips, Alfredsson, Spezza, Michalek) along with a new coach.
1. They got rid of an NHL player that no one wanted in Kovalev, but got virtually nothing in return. Are Canuck fans willing to let Burrows go for a 4th rounder because no one probably wants him?
2. Ottawa had a LOT of good/decent NHL prospects developing before the rebuild. Cowen, Greening, Smith, Condra, Silfverberg, O'Brien, Rundblad, Lehner, Butler, Daugavins, Wiercicoh, Gryba, etc.. Ottawa had good NHL prospects because they had been actively trying to re-build/re-tool for years but hadn't been able to blow up the roster until they fell apart. People forget that. Is Vancouver in the same position? Do they have ten-fifteen NHL players on their prospect list right now?
3. Ottawa didn't WANT to trade some guys they traded (Fisher and Kelly). They are/were good players, I still like them. Are the Canucks willing to let go of GOOD NHL players to make room for younger guys with no guarantee of success. Are they willing to give up Kesler or Edler for a bad return in order to commit to the rebuild?
4. A lot of their success comes from coaching (NHL and AHL both). Having two coaches doing well and working together with the same game plans and terminology helps immensely. Ottawa lucked out HUGE in that regard, hoping for Vancouver to do the same is a big risk, IMO
5. Ottawa has moved out (or not retained) a lot of players over a two year period. Fisher, Kelly, Campoli, Kovalev, Foligno, Elliot, Kuba, Ruutu, Lee, etc.. That's almost 1/2 an NHL roster.
6. Ottawa told it's fans it was going to be a three year rebuild to make the playoffs. The last two years have exceeded anyone's expectations.
7. The save % argument that someone brought up earlier is stupid. Ottawa has a high save % because of a combination of factors, namely: Good players (Anderson and Bishop are criminally under rated and Lehner is arguably one of of the best goalie prospects in the NHL), a coaching/team strategy that focuses on allowing outside shots and getting the puck out of the zone after recovery (they call it fast defence IIRC), and one of the best PK's in the league. You can't take away an element of a team and say "They would suck if X didn't exist" Well, "X" dos exist for a reason and you can't take it away to prove a point.
Ottawa TRIED to blow it up but were forced into a another re-tool because of various issues: Some guys just didn't want to go (Alfredsson and Phillips), while others needed to be kept to make minimum salary or because their contracts were too long (Gonchar and Kuba) to make them tradable. In the end, they were forced to retool and the veteran guys they kept ended up turning it around (Gonchar, Phillips, Alfredsson, Spezza, Michalek) along with a new coach.
1. They got rid of an NHL player that no one wanted in Kovalev, but got virtually nothing in return. Are Canuck fans willing to let Burrows go for a 4th rounder because no one probably wants him?
2. Ottawa had a LOT of good/decent NHL prospects developing before the rebuild. Cowen, Greening, Smith, Condra, Silfverberg, O'Brien, Rundblad, Lehner, Butler, Daugavins, Wiercicoh, Gryba, etc.. Ottawa had good NHL prospects because they had been actively trying to re-build/re-tool for years but hadn't been able to blow up the roster until they fell apart. People forget that. Is Vancouver in the same position? Do they have ten-fifteen NHL players on their prospect list right now?
3. Ottawa didn't WANT to trade some guys they traded (Fisher and Kelly). They are/were good players, I still like them. Are the Canucks willing to let go of GOOD NHL players to make room for younger guys with no guarantee of success. Are they willing to give up Kesler or Edler for a bad return in order to commit to the rebuild?
4. A lot of their success comes from coaching (NHL and AHL both). Having two coaches doing well and working together with the same game plans and terminology helps immensely. Ottawa lucked out HUGE in that regard, hoping for Vancouver to do the same is a big risk, IMO
5. Ottawa has moved out (or not retained) a lot of players over a two year period. Fisher, Kelly, Campoli, Kovalev, Foligno, Elliot, Kuba, Ruutu, Lee, etc.. That's almost 1/2 an NHL roster.
6. Ottawa told it's fans it was going to be a three year rebuild to make the playoffs. The last two years have exceeded anyone's expectations.
7. The save % argument that someone brought up earlier is stupid. Ottawa has a high save % because of a combination of factors, namely: Good players (Anderson and Bishop are criminally under rated and Lehner is arguably one of of the best goalie prospects in the NHL), a coaching/team strategy that focuses on allowing outside shots and getting the puck out of the zone after recovery (they call it fast defence IIRC), and one of the best PK's in the league. You can't take away an element of a team and say "They would suck if X didn't exist" Well, "X" dos exist for a reason and you can't take it away to prove a point.
You're not wrong in how you describe watching the game (qualitative data) and using stats -advanced or otherwise - (quant data). However, as someone who works in market research and uses/interprets both regularly, the best approach is to use quant data to interpret and understand what you are seeing/hearing in qual data. Since quant data is often context-poor, it can be mis-used or mis-interpreted quite easily. I find that occurs frequently on this board where advanced stats are used to "disprove" observational data - for example to support that the Sedins played great because their CorsiRelComp score was so high - while watching them play tells you they actually played quite poorly. This is a classic case of cherry picking quant stats and believing that they "trump" observed data, when in fact you can't say one "trumps" the other, you can only use them in tandem to better understand the greater picture.
WestleySnipez
Christmas came early
The thing with the Sedin's is you have to trade both of them. No team will have 12.2 mil cap space available next season. If we had to get someone back, chances are it's going to have to be a legitimate NHL star who is payed around the same as the Sedins. That would take a huge chunk out of the return we'd get for them. I think they should stay and retire Canucks.
Kesler should be moved, only if we go full rebuild, to a team in another Division. He'd fetch close to a small fortune. He's one of the best checking forwards in the game, he can score 30 goals a season with the right people, and he can play on both first line PP and PK, very few players can do that.
serge2k
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2006
- 15,116
- 3
If you are trading the Sedin's it is aprt of a rebuild, offer to keep a chunk of salary. It is only for one year and the Sedin's with cheaper deals are worth quite a bit.
Sedin's for 6.1 million total for a season, that's a deal teams would line up to take.
Unfortunately in the real world ownership would tell gillis to quit being an idiot.
Freakshow
Registered User
This team needs to trade three players, Edler/Kesler/Bieksa to change the direction of the team.
I would really like to see Bieksa traded. He is simply and always has been a liability on defense.
Canucker
Go Hawks!
Agreed. Maybe Don Cherry has raised his value by pumping his tires about being on the Canadian Olympic team?
Treefingers
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Ad
Latest posts
-
When was the last time you cried because of a playoff loss?- Latest: TruePowerSlave
-
-
