Post-Game Talk: Stars 4 @ Canucks 2 | 3/12/15

[opendoor]

Chicago did It twice, gillis didn't have the nut to sell strategically in 2012 or 2013 to get younger.

Sell who?

 

[Bobby Digital]

This is ridiculous.

In 2012 we were the 2x defending President's Trophy winners and 1 year removed from a team that should have won the Cup if everyone didn't get hurt. We were eliminated in the playoffs by a steamroller LA team that dominated like no team in recent memory.

No team, ever, is going to 'deal the core' and rebuild in that situation. The notion is utterly absurd. We were a top-3 team in the NHL.

Everyone literally had career years in 2010 and even then we lost in the finals. That finals lost took so much out of the core. Most teams who lose in the finals with a above average aged core never make it back. It's no surprise the team was swept by the Sharks. They were done.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Sell who?

Burrows
Higgins
Edler
Hamhuis
Bieksa
And so on and so on

 

[opendoor]

Burrows
Higgins
Edler
Hamhuis
Bieksa
And so on and so on

How is that selling strategically? That's pretty much the entire defense at that point. Maybe Burrows and Higgins could've been dangled, but they were pending UFAs in 2013 so I'm not sure how much they would've returned; certainly not enough to change the franchise's fortunes.

If you traded away one or two of those defensemen the team would just look like they do now, except a couple of years sooner. That's not strategic, that's intentional failure. What you're saying is they should've tanked after winning the President's Trophy.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

How is that selling strategically? That's pretty much the entire defense at that point. Maybe Burrows and Higgins could've been dangled, but they were pending UFAs in 2013 so I'm not sure how much they would've returned; certainly not enough to change the franchise's fortunes.

If you traded away one or two of those defensemen the team would just look like they do now, except a couple of years sooner. That's not strategic, that's intentional failure. What you're saying is they should've tanked after winning the President's Trophy.

Trading Edler, Hamhuis and Bieksa over the 2012 and 2013 seasons could have reaped a huge bounty for this team. Those players were in their primes, and we could have used them to get younger on the back end.

The last 5-6 years of Edler's hockey career aren't going to be pretty.

 

[MS]

The amount of idiocy here is mind-numbing.

The notion that a 111-point President's Trophy team should have 'dealt their core' and undergone a significant rebuild after 1 poor playoff series is absolutely stupid beyond belief.

If you think this, you're wrong. And you should probably go cheer for a team that more suits your mindset, like Edmonton.

There is no argument or evidence you can present that can make this position tenable.

 

[opendoor]

Trading Edler, Hamhuis and Bieksa over the 2012 and 2013 seasons could have reaped a huge bounty for this team. Those players were in their primes, and we could have used them to get younger on the back end.

The last 5-6 years of Edler's hockey career aren't going to be pretty.

Edler in 2013, maybe, and it sounds like he was being shopped. But you don't sign UFAs like Hamhuis and Bieksa and try to auction them off a year or two later. It's just not a viable plan in the real world. Especially when the end result is intentional failure for a team that had won the division 5 straight seasons.

 

[Ernie]

Chicago did It twice, gillis didn't have the nut to sell strategically in 2012 or 2013 to get younger.

That's ridiculous. Chicago certainly didn't do so by choice. They did so for cap reasons and had to shed players in the prime of their careers.

 

[ahmon]

The amount of idiocy here is mind-numbing.

The notion that a 111-point President's Trophy team should have 'dealt their core' and undergone a significant rebuild after 1 poor playoff series is absolutely stupid beyond belief.

If you think this, you're wrong. And you should probably go cheer for a team that more suits your mindset, like Edmonton.

There is no argument or evidence you can present that can make this position tenable.

you just want to ignore that the "core" was faulty to being with.

I always consider you as one of the smarter posters here.

Put yourself in the spot of the GM back in 2012.

You have 2 star forwards in the twins but are now 31-32 years old.

You have 2 very good 2 way forwards in Kesler and Burrows.

You clearly lack good top 6 wingers. And your defense is deep but mistake prone and you have no clear cup #1 dman like your competitors (Chicago-Keith, LA-Doughty etc)

You have great goaltending with Luongo/Schneider.

What would you do?

IMO there is clearly 2 viable options:

1. "Go for it' -ie, we realistically have a few years(2-3) of window left before you can expect the twins to decine.

Upgrade the wing, and trade mistake prone dman like Edler/Bieksa. Keep Hamhuis/Tanev/Salo and acquire a couple really good defenseman to augment them. Ballard should be gone.

2. Start to retool on the fly, ship out older players and accumulate draft picks/propects.


The management at that time did neither.

 

[MS]

you just want to ignore that the "core" was faulty to being with.

I always consider you as one of the smarter posters here.

Put yourself in the spot of the GM back in 2012.

You have 2 star forwards in the twins but are now 31-32 years old.

You have 2 very good 2 way forwards in Kesler and Burrows.

You clearly lack good top 6 wingers. And your defense is deep but mistake prone and you have no clear cup #1 dman like your competitors (Chicago-Keith, LA-Doughty etc)

You have great goaltending with Luongo/Schneider.

What would you do?

IMO there is clearly 2 viable options:

1. "Go for it' -ie, we realistically have a few years(2-3) of window left before you can expect the twins to decine.

Upgrade the wing, and trade mistake prone dman like Edler/Bieksa. Keep Hamhuis/Tanev/Salo and acquire a couple really good defenseman to augment them. Ballard should be gone.

2. Start to retool on the fly, ship out older players and accumulate draft picks/propects.


The management at that time did neither.

Clearly you do (1). Like, not even an option.

I'm not talking about whether Gillis did the right or wrong thing or made the right or wrong specific moves. But the 100% correct thing to do in 2012 was to continue trying to compete for a Cup. To rebuild is just laughable.

 

[ahmon]

Clearly you do (1). Like, not even an option.

I'm not talking about whether Gillis did the right or wrong thing or made the right or wrong specific moves. But the 100% correct thing to do in 2012 was to continue trying to compete for a Cup. To rebuild is just laughable.

I probably pick #1 as well, only if it was feasible to upgrade the roster and address the major deficiencies which I outlined.

If it was not feasible to upgrade our 2nd line and move out Edler/Bieksa for upgrades, then we should have went option #2.

ie, Could we have built a better defense than

Regehr-Doughty
Mitchell- Voynov

Keith-Seabrook
Oduya-Hjammer

?

 

[quat]

Chicago did It twice, gillis didn't have the nut to sell strategically in 2012 or 2013 to get younger.

Oddly enough, Chicago has had to do it twice, both times for cap reasons. The Canucks didn't have to do it for financial reasons, and therefore ... didn't.

 

[vancityluongo]

No because unless you're trading Kesler + Schneider in a package (ie. you're not because that wouldn't happen) you wouldn't be getting a defenseman at the level of Keith or Doughty.

Even in hindsight, they should've dumped Ballard early but not much else would have made sense.

 

[vancityluongo]

Eh, Oilers can't be the boogeyman for everything. Who did Monahan learn from in Calgary? He's doing just fine. Ditto for Gaudreau. Who insulated Toews and Kane their first year in Chicago? Robert Lang? What HoF'er is Domi and Duclair learning under in Arizona? Hanzal?

Not saying mentorship and insulation isn't valuable to a point, but you can't just wave your finger at the Oilers and say some words to make a strong argument. Theirs is a special kind of suck and not every young player will be ruined by *not* having a HoF mentor to learn under.

Given the choice between drafting @10 and mentoring that player under the Sedins and drafting @1 or 2 and having then face the big, bad NHL with only Brandon Sutter to "shield" them, I choose the latter 11 times out of 10.

Talent > Mentorship

Monahan had Hudler and a number of vets up front (Glencross, Stajan, Stempniak, Jackman, Cammalleri) and a strong defense with Giordano leading the way. They also had no delusions of making the playoffs, so Monahan was extremely sheltered and groomed properly.

You don't need HHOF level players though, no. If we had Ryan Kesler in front of Bo Horvat instead of Henrik Sedin, that works just as well. Hanzal might not even be at that level, but he's not a teenager.

When Ryan Nugent-Hopkins stepped into the Oilers lineup with zero career NHL games and was immediately their best center, that was a problem. Without Henrik Sedin, Bo Horvat would be our de-facto first line center. And Horvat doesn't have nearly the talent that Nuge does. See the problem?

As idiotic as Boston's handling of Seguin was, having him break into the league behind Bergeron, Krejci and Kelly is probably a huge reason why he's developed so well.

And like I said, I take the #1 pick every time too. But without the Sedins, this team still doesn't finish last...they probably finish with the 4th-6th pick instead of the 8th-10th. Sam Bennett (4th) over Nick Ritchie (10th) every time sure, but how about Jake Virtanen (6th) over William Nylander (8th)? And that's not even considering the development situation yet.

 

[Win One Before I Die]

Instead of the Chicago rebuild model, we followed the Calgary rebuild model. lol

 

[Rebuilt]

Such a heartbreaking lost in a close game..................

Miller stood on his head. I really thought we were going to pull off the point at least until we fell apart at the end.

Dallas really does have an excellent team. No shame in admitting that.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

you just want to ignore that the "core" was faulty to being with.

I always consider you as one of the smarter posters here.

Put yourself in the spot of the GM back in 2012.

You have 2 star forwards in the twins but are now 31-32 years old.

You have 2 very good 2 way forwards in Kesler and Burrows.

You clearly lack good top 6 wingers. And your defense is deep but mistake prone and you have no clear cup #1 dman like your competitors (Chicago-Keith, LA-Doughty etc)

You have great goaltending with Luongo/Schneider.

What would you do?

IMO there is clearly 2 viable options:

1. "Go for it' -ie, we realistically have a few years(2-3) of window left before you can expect the twins to decine.

Upgrade the wing, and trade mistake prone dman like Edler/Bieksa. Keep Hamhuis/Tanev/Salo and acquire a couple really good defenseman to augment them. Ballard should be gone.

2. Start to retool on the fly, ship out older players and accumulate draft picks/propects.


The management at that time did neither.

Such a travesty mitchell coughed up the puck and we lost that 2009 series against Chicago.

I truly believe 2009 was the best team the Canucks have ever had.

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Demitra - Sundin - Kesler
Raymond - Wellwood - Hansen
Rypien - Johnson - Bernier

Edler - Salo
Mitchell - Bieksa
Ohlund - SOB

Luongo
Raycroft
Schneider

We wont see a collection of talent loke that here maybe not in our lifetimes.

 

[Ainec]

Trading Edler, Hamhuis and Bieksa over the 2012 and 2013 seasons could have reaped a huge bounty for this team. Those players were in their primes, and we could have used them to get younger on the back end.

The last 5-6 years of Edler's hockey career aren't going to be pretty.

lmao.

 

[arttk]

Such a travesty mitchell coughed up the puck and we lost that 2009 series against Chicago.

I truly believe 2009 was the best team the Canucks have ever had.

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Demitra - Sundin - Kesler
Raymond - Wellwood - Hansen
Rypien - Johnson - Bernier

Edler - Salo
Mitchell - Bieksa
Ohlund - SOB

Luongo
Raycroft
Schneider

We wont see a collection of talent loke that here maybe not in our lifetimes.

I want to cry when I think about that. Man if Sundin came back for the 2nd season, we really could've won the cup. The 2010-11 team pretty much curb stomped everyone prior to injuries and that was without Sundin.

 

[NoShowWilly]

trading bieksa when he put up 44 points would have been swell. same with edler who had put up 49 points. Hamhuis too when he put up 37 points. we won the presidents trophy but should have sold at the deadline.

 

[fancouver]

No because unless you're trading Kesler + Schneider in a package (ie. you're not because that wouldn't happen) you wouldn't be getting a defenseman at the level of Keith or Doughty.

Even in hindsight, they should've dumped Ballard early but not much else would have made sense.

Man, imagine the return on that package. That's 1st overall in every year (except last year)+ another prospect. Canucks could sure have used an Ekblad or Mackinnon.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

The travesty about Mitchell was that Gillis gave up on him and he hoisted the cup with a different franchise.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

trading bieksa when he put up 44 points would have been swell. same with edler who had put up 49 points. Hamhuis too when he put up 37 points. we won the presidents trophy but should have sold at the deadline.

You're right, Gillis built a masterpiece- no changes were necessary

 

[PG Canuck]

I think I have watched almost every game since the 98 season and I have never felt so detached.

I mean, yes, there are very likeable players that I like, but the ones that make this team unbearable are the ones playing way too much/often.

 

[StIllmatic]

The travesty about Mitchell was that Gillis gave up on him and he hoisted the cup with a different franchise.

Couldn't be more wrong. Provide some context on why Gillis didn't sign him. Absolutely the right decision at the time.