Quick re-tool or major re-build?

[Bleach Clean]

What are you basing this on? The notion that the Canucks were a top 10 team prior to December is far from settled. In fact, if I recall correctly, goal differential, wins, and points seem to indicate that the Canucks were not a 10 team. It appears a small group of posters on this forum believed the Canucks were a top 10 team based on several advanced statistics. However, as I am sure you can appreciate, these statistics are not determinative, and are not always indicative of a team's true ability. Many posters doubted the veracity of these statistics at this time, and based on the Canucks play since earlier this year, it appears these doubters were more likely correct.

Advanced statistics are not determinitive. The fact that you think they are only speaks to the black and white false dichotomy you wish portray. It's about probability. That's why people say "I believe" X... Not, "This team is absolutely, unequivocally, Y".

Where were the doubters at the end of December?

 

[Addison Rae]

Just for ***** and giggles, I've compiled the best offers on some of our players on the main board.

Kesler:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=79130053&postcount=112
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=79140071&postcount=32
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=79143741&postcount=39

Kesler and Edler
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=79267803&postcount=265
(Oilers fan answering) http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=79267905&postcount=266

Dan Hamhuis
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=79162607&postcount=5
Leafs fan response
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=79162717&postcount=8

Kevin Bieksa:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=76568843&postcount=12
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=76578055&postcount=32

Jannik Hansen

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=79572653&postcount=30

I'll chose my favorites

To Van:

Nail Yakupv
EDM 1st round pick ( Sam Reinhart)

To Edm:

Ryan Kesler
Alex Edler

To TOR

Dan Hamhuis

To Van

Nazem Kadri
Jake Gardniner
1st
2nd

To Min

Kevin Bieksa

To Van

Charlie Coyle
3rd

Draft Sam Reinhart with the Oilers first
William Nylander with ours
Jack Glover with the Leafs

Roll with a core of

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Yakupov - Kadri - Reinhart
Shinkaruk - Horvat - Coyle
Jensen - Nylander - Conacher

Garrison - Tanev
Gardiner - Corrado
Glover - Stanton

Lu
Lack

#EaSports

Yeah that was a total waste of time

Just thought I'd post this here.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

It has been speculated that Daniel has been playing with injury (Botchford on Team1040 says he has been working with medical staff after games), and that it is known that Burrows is struggling to come back from one. So that's 3 players of this team's big4 up front. Then another top6 gets injured for the year in Santorelli... A Henrik injury away from being a bottom feeder indeed.

The final sentence is interesting because it excludes the possibility that the core can be supplemented. You could have the same core, + 1 or two high end additions, and that would put the team in a great position to compete. That sentence makes it seem like no matter what the realistic supplement, these core players cannot get it done regardless.

I'm willing to cut the top line some slack due to injury, but it still has to be taken into account Daniel and Burrows didn't score much last season either, when fully healthy. They both scored at a 20 goal pace, playing with arguably the most gifted playmaker in the Western conference. Goalscoring historically is a young man's game, and they will be 2 years removed from scoring at a pretty paltry 20 goal pace. Had they not looked so pedestrian last season, I would be less concerned about their play going forward.

As far as the 1 or 2 high end additions making this team a contender, you could say that about the other 15 teams surrounding the Canucks as well. Making those additions without subtracting valuable pieces off your roster is extremely difficult.

Like I said all along, if Gillis hits a home run in free agency, he could get this team back into the top half of the league. Though I don't believe removing an Edler and replacing him with a comparable forward will be enough to contend. It would just be more skill up front, even less on the backend - a backend that lacks skill at the best of times.

This organization desperately needs some talented forwards for the Sedins to pass the torch to. If that doesn't happen very soon, the Canucks will find themselves backed into a re-build, whether they like it or not.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I'm willing to cut the top line some slack due to injury, but it still has to be taken into account Daniel and Burrows didn't score much last season either, when fully healthy. They both scored at a 20 goal pace, playing with arguably the most gifted playmaker in the Western conference. Goalscoring historically is a young man's game, and they will be 2 years removed from scoring at a pretty paltry 20 goal pace. Had they not looked so pedestrian last season, I would be less concerned about their play going forward.

I thought the Sedins had one of their best years last year. On the whole. Interesting to see the stark difference in opinion.

I don't worry about Daniel until his PPG hits the skids. I think his game is changing to become more of a playmaker, and he's still shooting at 3.2 shots per game. Clearly, an injury is bothering him. His PPG last year put him in a tie with Joe Thornton... On the other hand, Burrows should have been closer to 30 points last year, but finished with 24. Was that a stark difference from 2012 for either player?

As far as the 1 or 2 high end additions making this team a contender, you could say that about the other 15 teams surrounding the Canucks as well. Making those additions without subtracting valuable pieces off your roster is extremely difficult.

But not every team is structured in the same way, nor has the same surplus from which to deal from. Nor would a certain addition have the same net impact, team to team.

Like I said all along, if Gillis hits a home run in free agency, he could get this team back into the top half of the league. Though I don't believe removing an Edler and replacing him with a comparable forward will be enough to contend. It would just be more skill up front, even less on the backend - a backend that lacks skill at the best of times.

This organization desperately needs some talented forwards for the Sedins to pass the torch to. If that doesn't happen very soon, the Canucks will find themselves backed into a re-build, whether they like it or not.

I'm not understanding something here: You've said that conversion is a big issue with the team. That despite their strong possession, they don't have the proper shooters to capitalize on their chances. Here, you have said that removing Edler and replacing him with a comparable forward would result in the same net skill level, just shifted to forward. How does this logic hold if the team gets a sniper up front as the comparable forward?

Following your theory, a sniper gets more conversion. More goals go with less shots overall. So you have shifted the skill up front, and have become better at converting, but yet somehow the swap is a net zero in terms of improving the team?

------------

In essence, you have said that the core cannot be supplemented to the level of this team being contenders again. In other words, this core is done. Let's see what Gillis does, maybe he thinks the same? (I doubt it)

 

[torlev*]

In essence, you have said that the core cannot be supplemented to the level of this team being contenders again. In other words, this core is done. Let's see what Gillis does, maybe he thinks the same? (I doubt it)

I think that's totally accurate. I'm not sure these guys were ever the core capable of winning a cup, but I'm near positive they aren't now. Maybe they're the supplementary players. Definitely not the core though.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I think that's totally accurate. I'm not sure these guys were ever the core capable of winning a cup, but I'm near positive they aren't now. Maybe they're the supplementary players. Definitely not the core though.

This core will never win a Stanley Cup.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I think that's totally accurate. I'm not sure these guys were ever the core capable of winning a cup, but I'm near positive they aren't now. Maybe they're the supplementary players. Definitely not the core though.

*Sigh* this with the current core getting to within one game of the cup? Never being capable vs. 60 min of hockey...

Curious, did you think the same of SJ's core before they were supplemented by Couture? People are talking about their strong cup hopes this year. Out of line?

 

[Drop the Sopel]

I'm not understanding something here: You've said that conversion is a big issue with the team. That despite their strong possession, they don't have the proper shooters to capitalize on their chances. Here, you have said that removing Edler and replacing him with a comparable forward would result in the same net skill level, just shifted to forward. How does this logic hold if the team gets a sniper up front as the comparable forward?

Following your theory, a sniper gets more conversion. More goals go with less shots overall. So you have shifted the skill up front, and have become better at converting, but yet somehow the swap is a net zero in terms of improving the team?

It's not that you're looking at no improvement, it's that you're moving your most skilled defenseman to get more skilled up front. In the end, you're hurting the teams transition game and offense from the backend. So you could see some improvement, I'm just not convinced it would be enough to go from a poor offensive team to being a very good one.

This team needs more finish up front, as well as offense from the backend. Moving Edler could help fill one hole, but it opens up another. For the Canucks to improve enough to be contenders again, they probably need to make additions, without subtracting from the roster. Something that is extremely difficult to do.

Which players in free agency would you be willing to overpay, with long term contracts and huge dollars? Moulson? Vrbata?

 

[Wilch]

The Canucks have played much better without Edler on the ice. He'll be fine for 80-90% of the game, and he'll make two or three back breaking mistakes that costs the team a goal or two.

Moving him now doesn't really open up any major holes.

 

[Hodgy]

Advanced statistics are not determinitive. The fact that you think they are only speaks to the black and white false dichotomy you wish portray. It's about probability. That's why people say "I believe" X... Not, "This team is absolutely, unequivocally, Y".

Where were the doubters at the end of December?

Did you misread my post or am I misunderstanding your post? I expressly stated that advanced statistics are not determinative.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

The Canucks have played much better without Edler on the ice. He'll be fine for 80-90% of the game, and he'll make two or three back breaking mistakes that costs the team a goal or two.

Moving him now doesn't really open up any major holes.

But it does put Kevin Bieksa out on the ice a lot more against very good players, something Bieksa can or can't handle, depending on the week.

Moving Edler also leaves the defense susceptible to major issues when injury strikes the top 4. Not to mention the already putrid PP loses one of it's best weapons.

For this team to improve offensively, they would be best off moving Garrison for a forward. Though that's not something I think will happen.

 

[Bleach Clean]

It's not that you're looking at no improvement, it's that you're moving your most skilled defenseman to get more skilled up front. In the end, you're hurting the teams transition game and offense from the backend. So you could see some improvement, I'm just not convinced it would be enough to go from a poor offensive team to being a very good one.

That's the wrong question IMO. The question should be: Does it make the team better overall? Offense/Defense/Transition should be resolved as a function of that answer.

Hurting vs. Helping comes down to degrees. How much are you hurting the transition and how much are you improving finishing ability? If the player is a of a similar calibre to Edler, but helps the team more in an area of clear weakness, while not weakening them by the same degree in another area, then that's a net gain.

This team needs more finish up front, as well as offense from the backend. Moving Edler could help fill one hole, but it opens up another. For the Canucks to improve enough to be contenders again, they probably need to make additions, without subtracting from the roster. Something that is extremely difficult to do.

Which players in free agency would you be willing to overpay, with long term contracts and huge dollars? Moulson? Vrbata?

They likely have to make one addition without subtraction anyway, or they will not be a cap team next year.

I would overpay Stastny. For this year, I have said that Gillis will make a push for Gaborik.

There's also the possibility of taking on a bad forward contract from somewhere else. The player may not be justifying his deal at present, but the Canucks have the room to take on a risk like that with a rising cap. There are some options.

Did you misread my post or am I misunderstanding your post? I expressly stated that advanced statistics are not determinative.

This is what you said:

these statistics are not determinative, and are not always indicative of a team's true ability. Many posters doubted the veracity of these statistics at this time

Nobody said they were determinative, so who were the posters arguing against the doubters? Further, what is a team's "true ability" and how is it measured? I know that advanced stats measure possession... so true ability would be something else. Lastly, what does "always indicative" mean? When dealing with probabilities (save for 100% proof), nothing is "always indicative". Possession has been about probability, not direct X = Y.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

That's the wrong question IMO. The question should be: Does it make the team better overall? Offense/Defense/Transition should be resolved as a function of that answer.

That is the question that really matters. If all moving Edler for a similar aged forward does is improve the team by a very small margin, I would prefer moving him for youthful pieces that may actually make the team worse next season. As I believe this team is a long ways from being a contender.

You also have to look beyond next season. As in, who leads this team in 2-3 years? If there isn't an answer to that question, it's time Gillis go out and address it. I believe there is no answer internally. IMO this organization is desperately in need of another deal akin to what Brian Burke did to land the Sedins. And unfortunately, I think the cost of doing that would be Ryan Kesler - a move that basically puts a nail in the coffin of this core group.

 

[ionicbluebird]

Unless Vancouver wants to be a lower-middle of the pack team for the next 5-6 years and beyond they must do a major re-tool... not quite a re-build but close.

Sell, sell, sell for the next year and a half, acquiring prospects and picks.. probably land a top 10 pick in next years draft, then from there begin our ascent. If we're lucky we may be contenders again in the last year of the Sedin's new contracts.


I'd much rather watch the Canucks do this than the alternative. It would be exciting having a glut of talented youth to be excited about and watch grow together. (our current prospects included of course)

 

[Hodgy]

Nobody said they were determinative, so who were the posters arguing against the doubters?

The following is the full quote.

However, as I am sure you can appreciate, these statistics are not determinative, and are not always indicative of a team's true ability.

Bolded is the part of the quote you conveniently did not include. Read in its entirety, the sentence clearly does not presume there is a "black and white false dichotomy". Such an interpretation is absurd at best, and disingenuous at worst.

As for the "posters arguing against the doubters", I believe you were one of them. You relied on advanced statistics to come to the conclusion that the Canucks were a top 10 team. At the time I attacked this assertion and did not believe that the advanced statistics were indicative of the team's ability. Based on my viewing of the team and other relevant statistics, I contended the Canucks were an average team.

Further, what is a team's "true ability" and how is it measured? I know that advanced stats measure possession... so true ability would be something else.

The "true ability" of a team is a team's ability to win. Advanced statistics measure possession, which is correlated, and thus indicative, of a team's ability to win.

Lastly, what does "always indicative" mean? When dealing with probabilities (save for 100% proof), nothing is "always indicative". Possession has been about probability, not direct X = Y.

This question is answered by my first comment.

 

[Bleach Clean]

That is the question that really matters. If all moving Edler for a similar aged forward does is improve the team by a very small margin, I would prefer moving him for youthful pieces that may actually make the team worse next season. As I believe this team is a long ways from being a contender.

You also have to look beyond next season. As in, who leads this team in 2-3 years? If there isn't an answer to that question, it's time Gillis go out and address it. I believe there is no answer internally. IMO this organization is desperately in need of another deal akin to what Brian Burke did to land the Sedins. And unfortunately, I think the cost of doing that would be Ryan Kesler - a move that basically puts a nail in the coffin of this core group.

If the answer wasn't here internally when Gillis signed the twins, why does it matter now, 60 games later? What does Gillis see in the twins and the team that makes him give out those deals?

On Edler: Before it was moving Edler for no net gain, now it's improvement by a small margin... If by your thinking the team's greatest area of need is shooting accuracy, and you get a player or two to address exactly those needs, I'm unsure why the improvement would be by a small margin?

Anyway, it's clear you are about the full rebuild. I am completely against the notion. Let's see which way Gillis goes...

 

[Drop the Sopel]

If the answer wasn't here internally when Gillis signed the twins, why does it matter now, 60 games later? What does Gillis see in the twins and the team that makes him give out those deals?

On Edler: Before it was moving Edler for no net gain, now it's improvement by a small margin... If by your thinking the team's greatest area of need is shooting accuracy, and you get a player or two to address exactly those needs, I'm unsure why the improvement would be by a small margin?

Well, the team looks like it could finish 25th overall in the NHL. That should matter.

Wanting to upgrade the top end of the roster is a lot different than actually accomplishing it. Most teams will be looking to improve their team this offseason. Only so many can actually do it. You don't want to be hoping to improve through a great trade or free agency coup. Instead, you look for your younger players to take a step forward. I don't see more players on the upswing in Vancouver as opposed to heading in the other direction. And this trend has been ongoing, hence the Canucks precipitous decline over the last 3 years.

In your opinion, are the pieces in place to lead this team in 2-3 years?

 

[Shareefruck]

It's the perfect time for a full rebuild, IMO. If not now, they're just going to be in a far worse situation to try and do it later on-- And for what? A minor retool that gets us barely back to where we were before, only to start this thing all over again?

A retool wastes the value of Kesler/the rest of our core, and it wastes the potential for Horvat/Shinkaruk/Gaunce/to do the most damage at the time when our team is at its strongest. We lucked out with a strong haul last year-- it's the perfect time to supplement them with more high end youth-- We'll likely finish low enough this year to get a reasonably high pick, we already have a decent starting point with our blue chip prospects, and this team is still fresh enough off success that there's plenty of value to deal.

Gillis needs to be opportunistic right now rather than p*ss it all away, being indecisive and prolonguing the inevitable, IMO.

 

[Bleach Clean]

The following is the full quote.

Bolded is the part of the quote you conveniently did not include. Read in its entirety, the sentence clearly does not presume there is a "black and white false dichotomy". Such an interpretation is absurd at best, and disingenuous at worst.

The intro doesn't change much. Basically, it's saying that advanced stats are "not always indicative of team ability," implying there were others that thought this, and taking the position against that make believe group as a "doubter".

As for the "posters arguing against the doubters", I believe you were one of them. You relied on advanced statistics to come to the conclusion that the Canucks were a top 10 team. At the time I attacked this assertion and did not believe that the advanced statistics were indicative of the team's ability. Based on my viewing of the team and other relevant statistics, I contended the Canucks were an average team.

In what world was I a poster adopting the stance that possession is "always indicative of team ability"? When team ability can include anything from possession, to shot conversion, to goaltending, to special teams and so on...? This is especially interesting when possession itself is about probability and not a wholly predictive measure, both then and now. The definition of possession hasn't changed.

The probability was that they would become top10, to further reflect their underlying numbers. Not that they were guaranteed to be top10.

To re-iterate: The Canucks were a top10 team (as high as 6th for a month) in terms of possession. In terms of play. They are still a top10 team in terms of possession now (Fenwick differential at 5vs5 is 9th). With about a 20 game stretch of being elite, in this regard.

The "true ability" of a team is a team's ability to win. Advanced statistics measure possession, which is correlated, and thus indicative, of a team's ability to win.

This question is answered by my first comment.

The ability to win is based on more factors than possession. A correlation is not "always indicative of a team's ability to win". If it were, LA would be winning everything, and TOR would be near the bottom of the league. No such thing as "always indicative" when it comes to the probabilities of possession.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Well, the team looks like it could finish 25th overall in the NHL. That should matter.

Wanting to upgrade the top end of the roster is a lot different than actually accomplishing it. Most teams will be looking to improve their team this offseason. Only so many can actually do it. You don't want to be hoping to improve through a great trade or free agency coup. Instead, you look for your younger players to take a step forward. I don't see more players on the upswing in Vancouver as opposed to heading in the other direction. And this trend has been ongoing, hence the Canucks precipitous decline over the last 3 years.

In your opinion, are the pieces in place to lead this team in 2-3 years?

No, there aren't, but that doesn't matter because Gillis knows it too and he still signed the twins. Why did he do that?

Also, please answer the question about the degree of improvement when switching Edler out for a similar calibre forward. Per your own logic, how is this a marginal improvement if it addresses the greatest area of need?

All any GM can do is hope to improve via FA/Trade/Draft. Those are the only options available to him. Nothing wrong with banking on 2/3rds of that grouping when this GM has been doing exactly that for 6 years. He hasn't had a big draft to bolster his NHL core. Yet, up until recently, he's been doing just fine.

Look, I'm all about the draft. Ideally, every team builds through it, and Gillis is, in a way. But MG has not lost sight of the current product. I think he will try to do his best with what's here until the point of no return... We're not there yet IMO. They could finish low in the standings this year, and bounce back next year, as many teams have done.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

Also, please answer the question about the degree of improvement when switching Edler out for a similar calibre forward. Per your own logic, how is this a marginal improvement if it addresses the greatest area of need?

It's 1 step forward, 1 step back. You're filling one need, while opening up another. There simply aren't any skilled dmen in the organization to step into Edler's icetime and excel IMO. If they had guys that could do that, it would be a different story. I see a dearth of skilled dmen on this roster, sans Edler.

You don't see trouble looming 2-3 years from now? I don't see a viable succession plan in place whatsoever. Gillis has 2 options IMO - be proactive and look to assemble a strong collection of youth, or ride the veterans into the ground for another 2 years, then strip everything down. Either way, there are some lean times ahead IMO. I just don't see this team as a serious contender in the next 2 years. So you may as well parlay assets while their value is high, and get to the end game a lot earlier. The strength of next years draft is also a factor. A top 6-8 pick could be HUGE.

 

[Wilch]

No, there aren't, but that doesn't matter because Gillis knows it too and he still signed the twins. Why did he do that?

Also, please answer the question about the degree of improvement when switching Edler out for a similar calibre forward. Per your own logic, how is this a marginal improvement if it addresses the greatest area of need?

All any GM can do is hope to improve via FA/Trade/Draft. Those are the only options available to him. Nothing wrong with banking on 2/3rds of that grouping when this GM has been doing exactly that for 6 years. He hasn't had a big draft to bolster his NHL core. Yet, up until recently, he's been doing just fine.

Look, I'm all about the draft. Ideally, every team builds through it, and Gillis is, in a way. But MG has not lost sight of the current product. I think he will try to do his best with what's here until the point of no return... We're not there yet IMO. They could finish low in the standings this year, and bounce back next year, as many teams have done.

Sadly, you're probably right, for the wrong reason. Gillis would probably keep this mediocrity ******** going hoping for their scout and prospect development to step their game up big time... But as we all know, drafting well is tough and requires luck, and our prospect development in the minors hasn't been exactly a forte. Let's say we get lucky and draft a few good players in mid-first round, they still likely won't be ready to make an impact until the Sedins are DONE. Best case scenario, we take a Logan Couture in the teens. He still won't be ready to hit the big league until 2016/17. Even if we assume the prospect develops at light speed and is ready by 2015, it's likely said prospect still won't find his groove until a couple years down the road.

Gillis's reasoning for doing this **** would be to maintain ticket sales, and his reasoning to the public would be some crap along the lines of we want to improve while staying competitive. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping to god he doesn't do the above, but instead go with my proposal.

I advocate for tanking the rest of this season and ideally the next while stocking up on as many 2014/15 firsts as possible
1. Without trading any one of the Sedins, Hamhuis, and Garrison.
2. Tanev, Stanton, Corrado, Kassian, and Lack will not be moved for anything short of an overpayment.
3. Open season on everyone else, acquire multiple blue chip prospects through the draft. Ideally Kesler, Edler, Luongo and Bieksa are moved for a combination of
a. A top 3 2014 first
b. A 2015 first from a middling team or an aging team
c. ELC players ready to make instant impact, pending RFA acceptable if player is of higher calibre
4. Start icing NHL-ready prospects drafted earlier on in Horvat, Shinkaruk, Gaunce, Fox, Jensen, Subban, Hutton.

I did this for the sake of discussion, as I know it's not a strong predictor of the future, but at least it's a reference point. None of it may happen, this is just a best case scenario.

I applied an individual decline rate to each player based on their age and play style, so you'll see a more notable drop with Kesler.

Any improvements are mere speculation, but none of these are linear, FYI.

We will be absolutely dreadful in 2014-15, that's for sure, but we'll essentially do what Colorado did. They took MacKinnon, Landeskog and Duchene (1st, 2nd and 3rd overall picks). The higher we draft, the sooner the prospect will be ready.

We'll do what they did in just 1.5 season, while retaining the integral part of the team's core in the Sedins, Hamhuis and Garrison.

All of this is done through the following hypothetical moves:

One or two of Edler, Bieksa and Kesler for a top 3 first this year
The Canucks tanking it this year and end up around 25/26th
The Canucks tanking it hard the following year, finishing dead last
Canucks icing their physically ready prospects, not afraid to let them make mistakes and let them develop quicker

 

[I in the Eye]

You don't see trouble looming 2-3 years from now? I don't see a viable succession plan in place whatsoever. Gillis has 2 options IMO - be proactive and look to assemble a strong collection of youth, or ride the veterans into the ground for another 2 years, then strip everything down. Either way, there are some lean times ahead IMO. I just don't see this team as a serious contender in the next 2 years. So you may as well parlay assets while their value is high, and get to the end game a lot earlier. The strength of next years draft is also a factor. A top 6-8 pick could be HUGE.

There's trouble looming every year. Every year, there are challenges, predators, and competitors. You see the challenging times ahead as something to fear... A guy like Ryan Walter would see those challenging times ahead, as an "opportunity to shine".

I'm all for making a key change or two (for reasons outlined in previous posts)... but at the start of each season, if Gillis isn't thinking about "what's it going to take to win the cup this year", looking at the roster on hand, what's available to fill in the missing pieces for that year's version of the Canucks (given the salary cap as a constraint), and trying to reach this goal, every year, the best he can with what he's got... then he's just not doing his job. That's the job of every General Manager in the league. The reason teams are bottom feeders is simply because they cannot stop being bottom feeders. And they have to sell their fans the promise of youth, because there is nothing else to sell. At the start of each year, every one of them is trying to get better. Only the Oilers embraced this role of being annual bottom feeder (submitting defeat before the season even started)... and that's because they had to... they had no way to get better as no one of significance who could help wanted to play or stay with them. Now, they want out from being a bottom feeder because they feel it's time to get out... but real life doesn't work like that. No one can put a time limit on this. Not how long it would take to rebuild, and not how long the Canucks have left before naturally being a bottom feeder, assuming all negative outputs and no positive inputs. 2 years is arbitrary. It's okay to guess, and give opinions, but no one can say with any degree of certainty. Someone can point to player ages, but that is very shortsighted and ignores so much that can take place between now and two years from now.

Re-build is just not an option, IMO. "Re-build" is a term invented by bottom feeders to sell their fans something... It sounds like it's worthy of investing into, and being a part of, and that great things will result. "Re-tool" with a "commitment to youth" is a good option given where this team is, and where they are in their lifecycle. When the team can't sell Stanley Cup contender at the moment, this is what Gillis needs to sell. If he sells "re-build", speaking for myself, I'm not buying. I'll watch the Canucks on tv, happily and whenever I can. But some other chump can spend money to go to the games regularly to watch this "re-build" live. How long would the tv show run for? Doubt Gillis would put a timeline on it, in years. No matter how dumb someone thinks Gillis is, he's still a lot smarter than Lowe.

 

[Snatcher Demko]

It's the perfect time for a full rebuild, IMO. If not now, they're just going to be in a far worse situation to try and do it later on-- And for what? A minor retool that gets us barely back to where we were before, only to start this thing all over again?

A retool wastes the value of Kesler/the rest of our core, and it wastes the potential for Horvat/Shinkaruk/Gaunce/to do the most damage at the time when our team is at its strongest. We lucked out with a strong haul last year-- it's the perfect time to supplement them with more high end youth-- We'll likely finish low enough this year to get a reasonably high pick, we already have a decent starting point with our blue chip prospects, and this team is still fresh enough off success that there's plenty of value to deal.

Gillis needs to be opportunistic right now rather than p*ss it all away, being indecisive and prolonguing the inevitable, IMO.

I agree completely. Mediocrity cannot be accepted here.

 

[Hodgy]

The intro doesn't change much. Basically, it's saying that advanced stats are "not always indicative of team ability," implying there were others that thought this, and taking the position against that make believe group as a "doubter".

Your interpretation relies on an implication while ignoring an express opposite intention. That's a non-sensical and untenable position. The addition of "as I am sure you can appreciate" quite clearly modifies the rest of the sentence. Again, here is the full sentence:

However, as I am sure you can appreciate, these statistics are not determinative, and are not always indicative of a team's true ability.

This sentence was directed towards you, singular. It unequivocally, and expressly, states that I do not believe that you think advanced statistics are determinative, nor do I believe that you think advanced statistics are always indicative of a team's true ability. This is the plain, unambiguous, meaning of the sentence.

In what world was I a poster adopting the stance that possession is "always indicative of team ability"? When team ability can include anything from possession, to shot conversion, to goaltending, to special teams and so on...? This is especially interesting when possession itself is about probability and not a wholly predictive measure, both then and now. The definition of possession hasn't changed.

This was never my contention. Can you show me where I stated this? My point was, and has always been, that you relied on advanced statistics to support your argument that the Canucks were a top ten team in the NHL. This doesn't require you to believe that "possession is 'always indicative of team ability'".

The probability was that they would become top10, to further reflect their underlying numbers. Not that they were guaranteed to be top10.

What are you basing on this? You seem to be suggesting that the fact that advanced statistics indicated they were a top ten team meant that there was more than a 50% chance that they would become a top ten team. What is your factual basis for this?

What is the correlation/predicative value of the advanced statistics you were relying on? More than 50%?

The ability to win is based on more factors than possession. A correlation is not "always indicative of a team's ability to win". If it were, LA would be winning everything, and TOR would be near the bottom of the league. No such thing as "always indicative" when it comes to the probabilities of possession.

Again, this is based on an absurd interpretation of my above cited sentence.