Speculation: Lucic interested in Vancouver

[Canucker]

You first say you do not want to add players because 1) you do not want team to improve 2) because these players are not good. Which is it? If they are not good the team will not improve.

Next you say you do not want to cheer for a bad team, but you just said you do not want the team to improve. So which is it.

Next you say the team might be worse next year, like that is a bad thing from your perspective.? When earlier you said you want the team to be bad in order to rebuild? SO basically you are not going to be happy no matter what happens. Team improves bad because they ruin draft position. Team stays bad, bad because you do not want to cheer for a "bad team".

Possible scenarios for your happiness. Ownership sells to a new owner who does not care it the team loses value. This new owner with a 5 year plan where the team becomes less valuable each year and may in fact lose money every year then changes management in order to implement money losing plan. Voila after 5 years of good drafting the team becomes a 2014-15 Florida Panther level team, and there is hope.
Team starts to draw fans again, perhaps getting back to 2015-16 levels.

So that is the dream scenario from your prospective. Unless there is an ownership change to people who do not mind losing money for multiple years for the promise of future gains your dream will not happen. This ownership might if the team struggles for a few more years and the fans stop going at that point there is nothing to lose. Right now there is still a lot to lose. No team that makes money is going to implement a plan to lose money. Like Kevin Leary say's "show me the money".

People should look at things from the owner's perspective. Having a plan that lowers team value and loses them money is not how they got rich in the first place. However if the team value drops and they start losing money then there is less risk and more value to your above plan. Right now and for the last 3 years the sell and rebuild fans have ignored the financial implications of this strategy and as a consequence have set themselves up for years of disappointment no matter what happens with their favorite team. I do not blame the owners, Linden, Benning for their moves they are doing exactly what they should be doing based on the money.

Fans don't cheer for the owners profits, they cheer for an exciting team that wins. If they build a team that wins there won't be any issue with the "value" of the franchise.

 

[y2kcanucks]

You first say you do not want to add players because 1) you do not want team to improve 2) because these players are not good. Which is it? If they are not good the team will not improve.

It's not difficult to figure out. I don't want the team to be in Calgary/Toronto-like purgatory. Committing big salaries long-term to players who aren't going to be worth those contracts is idiotic.

Next you say you do not want to cheer for a bad team, but you just said you do not want the team to improve. So which is it.

I can cheer for a team that's going through a proper rebuild. What I can't cheer for is a team where management legitimately thinks they're building a contender, but in reality they're just putting together an expensive team full of garbage. I can't support that. Again, simple concept.

Next you say the team might be worse next year, like that is a bad thing from your perspective.? When earlier you said you want the team to be bad in order to rebuild? SO basically you are not going to be happy no matter what happens. Team improves bad because they ruin draft position. Team stays bad, bad because you do not want to cheer for a "bad team".

My fear is that the idiots ruining this team are going to saddle the next GM with Clarkson-like contracts. I can live through a 2015-16 Leafs-like rebuild. What I can't support is a repeat of last year.

Possible scenarios for your happiness. Ownership sells to a new owner who does not care it the team loses value. This new owner with a 5 year plan where the team becomes less valuable each year and may in fact lose money every year then changes management in order to implement money losing plan. Voila after 5 years of good drafting the team becomes a 2014-15 Florida Panther level team, and there is hope.
Team starts to draw fans again, perhaps getting back to 2015-16 levels.

Do you seriously think the team is either gaining in value, or holding its value?

What I want is a new owner who wants this team to be built into a competitive cup contender, and one who understands that it will require some patience. The first step will be to bring in actual knowledgeable hockey people who have a firm understanding of analytics. I don't see a team that is rebuilding and bringing in quality young players who fans will get excited about, being devalued any more than the garbage that they're currently doing. Please explain this position of yours.

So that is the dream scenario from your prospective. Unless there is an ownership change to people who do not mind losing money for multiple years for the promise of future gains your dream will not happen. This ownership might if the team struggles for a few more years and the fans stop going at that point there is nothing to lose. Right now there is still a lot to lose. No team that makes money is going to implement a plan to lose money. Like Kevin Leary say's "show me the money".

People should look at things from the owner's perspective. Having a plan that lowers team value and loses them money is not how they got rich in the first place. However if the team value drops and they start losing money then there is less risk and more value to your above plan. Right now and for the last 3 years the sell and rebuild fans have ignored the financial implications of this strategy and as a consequence have set themselves up for years of disappointment no matter what happens with their favorite team. I do not blame the owners, Linden, Benning for their moves they are doing exactly what they should be doing based on the money.

Again, do you really think the team is doing well right now? Tickets are being used as toilet paper. Do you really think that will somehow miraculously change if the team becomes a perennial bubble team that's not quite good enough to make the playoffs, or gets smashed in round 1?

So you're saying what the owners and management should be doing is exactly what Calgary and Toronto tried to year after year and it didn't work? With the declining fan interest in this market, declining attendance, and sharp decline in the value of tickets on the secondary market (which is a precursor to future season ticket renewal declines), you really stand by this position that they're doing what they should be?

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Minus Hamhuis and adding Sbisa, this is probably what Jim Benning's whiteboard looks like. Minor difference in that he probably has Lucic-Sutter-Hansen and Baertschi-Horvat-Dorsett as the middle-6 lines.

That team would make the playoffs next season, fighting with Minnesota for the top wildcard seed or squeezing in as the 3rd Pacific seed. How about the season after that? Can you reasonably expect Bo Horvat and Sven Baertschi to take enough of a leap forward offensively to cover for the likely combined 50 points taken off the Sedins totals?

That would also not be a fun team to cheer for. I want to cheer for exciting young players like Panarin, Gaudreau or Kuznetsov. Not a team with has-been thugs like Lucic and never-was thugs like Dorsett.

So you've anticipating a year from now the Sedins will barely be 30 point players despite showing minimal signs of such a decline? If that actually happens, even with Lucic and Eriksson, we would sink to the bottom of the league and get another shot at drafting a good player everyone wants. That said, they very idea that drop off that much at all, let alone in a year from now is, frankly, absurd.

 

[Alexander Edler]

no i dont want this mut

 

[fancouver]

I'm going to take issue with the bolded. The best offensive defensemen have good assist totals because they help their forwards create offense.

Is this a causation or correlation?

You don't think Tanev's assist totals would go up if he had the luxury of Iginla, Duchene, Landeskog and Mackinnon putting the puck in the back of the net? That's 4 players who had over 20 goals compared to Canucks 2 players. How much better is Barrie compared to Tanev? Is Barrie 22 assists better than Tanev? I don't think so. We lacked the forward depth.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Is this a causation or correlation?

You don't think Tanev's assist totals would go up if he had the luxury of Iginla, Duchene, Landeskog and Mackinnon putting the puck in the back of the net? That's 4 players who had over 20 goals compared to Canucks 2 players. How much better is Barrie compared to Tanev? Is Barrie 22 assists better than Tanev? I don't think so. We lacked the forward depth.

Good offensive defensemen get points because they're good at carrying the puck, they pass well, and they can set up good scoring chances. Often times they either join the rush or are good enough to QB the PP.

The Canucks don't have any good offensive defensemen outside of Hutton, and pairing a poor puck possession player with another poor puck possession player is a recipe for disaster.