Tank or re-tool on the fly?

[me2]

Edmonton has consistently drafted good players, they just keep drafting the the same type of player, which is why their team is so messed up.

1995-6 Steve Kelly
1996-6 Boyd Devereaux
1997-19 Matthieu Descoteaux
1997-14 Michel Riesen
1998-13 Michael Henrich
1999-13 Jani Rita
2000-17 Alexei Mikhnov
2001-13 Ales Hemsky
2002-15 Jesse Niinimaki
2002-31 Jeff Deslauriers
2003-22 Marc-Antoine Pouliot
2004-14 Devan Dubnyk
2004-25 Rob Schremp
2005-25 Andrew Cogliano
2007-6 Sam Gagner
2007-15 Alex Plante
2007-21 Riley Nash
2008-22 Jordan Eberle
2009-10 Magnus Paajarvi

 

[Dezmoto]

He was a key piece in the trade to acquire Mike Richards. No 5th overall pick to draft Schenn, no trade for Mike Richards, probably no cup.

It's hard to qualify that, since they could conceivably have worked out an alternate deal that didn't involve a player that was drafted that high.

The 2008 Red Wings also had only 3 first rounders on their cup winning team, and only 1 of those was drafted in the top 10 which was Brad Stuart, (picked 3rd overall by San Jose) who came from LA for Detroit's 2nd round pick.

Boston's cup team had 7 first round players, and only Nathan Horton and Blake Wheeler were picked in the top 10 (not by Boston though). 4 were not impact players that season and another was the backup goalie Tuukka Rask (who is now their star goalie).

When you look at Boston's impact players in the playoffs here's how it looks:

Tim Thomas Conn Smythe winner (9th round pick)
Zdeno Chara 9pts +16 (3rd round pick)
David Krejci 23pts (2nd round pick)
Patrice Bergeron 20pts (2nd round pick)
Brad Marchand 19pts (3rd round pick)
Nathan Horton 17pts (1st round, 3rd overall)
Micheal Ryder 17pts (8th round pick)

So you have your coveted early 1st round draft pick player, who is being outperformed in the playoffs by a bunch of 2nd round players and is equalled by an 8th round player. Your Conn Smythe winner was 9th round pick and arguably next best player was a 3rd round pick.

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that, unless it's a really weak draft, the first 3 rounds will pony up a lot of useable players and just because someone's a early first rounder, it doesn't guarantee them becoming a superstar for your team. So, to me, it's really not worth torpedoing your season just to try and draft in the top 5.

 

[Wilch]

It's hard to qualify that, since they could conceivably have worked out an alternate deal that didn't involve a player that was drafted that high.

The 2008 Red Wings also had only 3 first rounders on their cup winning team, and only 1 of those was drafted in the top 10 which was Brad Stuart, (picked 3rd overall by San Jose) who came from LA for Detroit's 2nd round pick.

Boston's cup team had 7 first round players, and only Nathan Horton and Blake Wheeler were picked in the top 10 (not by Boston though). 4 were not impact players that season and another was the backup goalie Tuukka Rask (who is now their star goalie).

When you look at Boston's impact players in the playoffs here's how it looks:

Tim Thomas Conn Smythe winner (9th round pick)
Zdeno Chara 9pts +16 (3rd round pick)
David Krejci 23pts (2nd round pick)
Patrice Bergeron 20pts (2nd round pick)
Brad Marchand 19pts (3rd round pick)
Nathan Horton 17pts (1st round, 3rd overall)
Micheal Ryder 17pts (8th round pick)

So you have your coveted early 1st round draft pick player, who is being outperformed in the playoffs by a bunch of 2nd round players and is equalled by an 8th round player. Your Conn Smythe winner was 9th round pick and arguably next best player was a 3rd round pick.

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that, unless it's a really weak draft, the first 3 rounds will pony up a lot of useable players and just because someone's a early first rounder, it doesn't guarantee them becoming a superstar for your team. So, to me, it's really not worth torpedoing your season just to try and draft in the top 5.

If the Canucks were good at picking diamonds in the rough beyond the mid teens, we'd be looking at a few cups by now and wouldn't be having this conversation about tanking.

Pretty sure if we picked Giroux over Grabner we would have a cup or two by now.

It is precisely because of our management and scouts inability to identify and develop talent that we may have to be spoonfed a few high end prospects before we can make any kind impact again.

Every team is trying to pick guys like Chara, Krejci, Bergeron and Marchand. It's not easy. I should also mention Chara was a UFA signing, so let's exclude him from this conversation.

Not to mention teams are getting smarter and better in amateur scouting and pro scouting. On top of all that, a lot of the old boys club idiots are slowly being weeded out of the league, meaning we'll likely see fewer and fewer lopsided trades.

The only reliable way of creating value of nothing is to draft high. All the other methods are a crapshoot (winning a trade, signing money puck UFAs, 2nd-7th round picks).

 

[Dezmoto]

If the Canucks were good at picking diamonds in the rough beyond the mid teens, we'd be looking at a few cups by now and wouldn't be having this conversation about tanking.

Pretty sure if we picked Giroux over Grabner we would have a cup or two by now.

It is precisely because of our management and scouts inability to identify and develop talent that we may have to be spoonfed a few high end prospects before we can make any kind impact again.

Every team is trying to pick guys like Chara, Krejci, Bergeron and Marchand. It's not easy. I should also mention Chara was a UFA signing, so let's exclude him from this conversation.

Not to mention teams are getting smarter and better in amateur scouting and pro scouting. On top of all that, a lot of the old boys club idiots are slowly being weeded out of the league, meaning we'll likely see fewer and fewer lopsided trades.

The only reliable way of creating value of nothing is to draft high. All the other methods are a crapshoot (winning a trade, signing money puck UFAs, 2nd-7th round picks).

Don't make me bring up Alek Stojanov, Dan Woodley, Libor Polasek, Jason Herter, Partrick White, Kirill Koltsov, Nathan Smith, Josh Holden… wait, I need to stop, I'm getting depressed.

 

[82Ninety42011]

Don't make me bring up Alek Stojanov, Dan Woodley, Libor Polasek, Jason Herter, Partrick White, Kirill Koltsov, Nathan Smith, Josh Holden… wait, I need to stop, I'm getting depressed.

We have got to have the worst drafting record in the NHL the last ten years I'd believe. Hopefully Horvat, Shinkaruk , Virtanen and McCann change that moving forward.

 

[Wilch]

Don't make me bring up Alek Stojanov, Dan Woodley, Libor Polasek, Jason Herter, Partrick White, Kirill Koltsov, Nathan Smith, Josh Holden… wait, I need to stop, I'm getting depressed.

Given how futile and horrifyingly bad our draft has been, I think it's fair to say you might change your mind on the "let's just pick smart" stance.

We have got to have the worst drafting record in the NHL the last ten years I'd believe. Hopefully Horvat, Shinkaruk , Virtanen and McCann change that moving forward.

It's not the worst actually. Edmonton and Calgary are both pretty awful. Considering they had more picks than us and often picked higher in all rounds (several in the lottery) in the last decade, their lack of talent up to now is nauseously bad. I haven't gone through every crappy team's draft history, but we're definitely not the worst.

 

[Dezmoto]

We have got to have the worst drafting record in the NHL the last ten years I'd believe. Hopefully Horvat, Shinkaruk , Virtanen and McCann change that moving forward.

Fingers crossed.

 

[Dezmoto]

Given how futile and horrifyingly bad our draft has been, I think it's fair to say you might change your mind on the "let's just pick smart" stance.

I don't recall ever having a "let's just pick smart" stance. I do however, recall having a "picking in the top 5 doesn't guarantee you a good player or a championship" stance.

 

[Derp Kassian]

I just think it's baffling how some of the scouts have survived essentially 4 GM regimes without having a major rejig. Quite a few hold overs from the Burke/Nonis era. I'd say the same common demoninator has been Delorme and the 1982 old boys club. Where has the notion that Eric Crawford took over come from?

Gradin should literally be the only one who is still employed out of that group.

 

[Wilch]

I don't recall ever having a "let's just pick smart" stance. I do however, recall having a "picking in the top 5 doesn't guarantee you a good player or a championship" stance.

Then I agree with you.

But picking top 5 multiple times is almost a pre-requisite nowadays for teams to ice a contender in the cap era.

Proven commodities cost too much and can neuter a team that's cap-strapped.

You need players on ELC, bridge contracts or palatable long term contracts signed before RFA status expires.

These are typically players picked in the top 5.

In rare instances, elite players are moved under circumstantial trades (Neely, Seguin, Thornton) or stupid GM (Luongo), are late bloomers (Bertuzzi, Sedins, Sharp, Datysuk), had exponential growth in size and skills after draft year (Lucic, Benn, Zetteberg), or straight up fell for whatever reason (Couturier).

In our 3 eras of success, we relied on a lottery pick in Linden and Bure (who was considered a top 3 pick at the time but fell due to uncertainties), Naslund and Bertuzzi (deft trades with dumb GMs), and finally the Sedins (top 3 picks) and Luongo (more stoopid).

The supplementary players we acquired through drafts, trades and signings.

Our management has yet to make any moves or picks that show signs of becoming a high end core. The Canucks are a critical moment right now, similar to the Messier days and the Bertuzzi-Moore days. The team is falling apart, the core is getting too old and mentally fatigued.

We have a decent prospect pool at the moment, but there are no indications of a high end core outside of Horvat currently - the jury is out on Virtanen and Shinkaruk.

Right now, more than ever, we'll need a couple of top 5 picks or get extremely lucky. The latter is completely out of the management's control.

 

[hawksfan79]

Then I agree with you.

But picking top 5 multiple times is almost a pre-requisite nowadays for teams to ice a contender in the cap era.

Proven commodities cost too much and can neuter a team that's cap-strapped.

You need players on ELC, bridge contracts or palatable long term contracts signed before RFA status expires.

These are typically players picked in the top 5.

In rare instances, elite players are moved under circumstantial trades (Neely, Seguin, Thornton) or stupid GM (Luongo), are late bloomers (Bertuzzi, Sedins, Sharp, Datysuk), had exponential growth in size and skills after draft year (Lucic, Benn, Zetteberg), or straight up fell for whatever reason (Couturier).

In our 3 eras of success, we relied on a lottery pick in Linden and Bure (who was considered a top 3 pick at the time but fell due to uncertainties), Naslund and Bertuzzi (deft trades with dumb GMs), and finally the Sedins (top 3 picks) and Luongo (more stoopid).

The supplementary players we acquired through drafts, trades and signings.

Our management has yet to make any moves or picks that show signs of becoming a high end core. The Canucks are a critical moment right now, similar to the Messier days and the Bertuzzi-Moore days. The team is falling apart, the core is getting too old and mentally fatigued.

We have a decent prospect pool at the moment, but there are no indications of a high end core outside of Horvat currently - the jury is out on Virtanen and Shinkaruk.

Right now, more than ever, we'll need a couple of top 5 picks or get extremely lucky. The latter is completely out of the management's control.

This is one of the best posts I've read on HF in a long time, bravo!

As an outside observer, I was a bit confused on what your GM was doing, I thought it was for sure tank time in Vancouver, but it appears they're going for the re-tool on the fly, which is pretty hard to do when your stars are older.

It is REALLY difficult to win in this league without young, high end players, and contributors on ELC/bridge contracts. The Hawks are running into that problem now (and probably why TT was not traded as part of a Kesler deal). And while there's always a risk you could fall into perpetual rebuild like Edmonton, there are plenty of examples of teams who whether they intentionally tanked, or fell apart due to injuries/inept management, were bad for a year or two, got that high draft pick, then bounced back. The WORST spot to be at IMO is that middle ground, never good enough to be a real championship threat, but too good to get a high draft pick, that middle ground kills franchises.

 

[Alan Jackson]

I said before that I'm opposed to a tank (that is, purposely making your team worse), but you also have to be pragmatic.

If this team is 6 or 8 points out of 8th place near the deadline, I would have no problem with trading away some vets at the deadline, giving the kids a shot, and letting the chips fall where they may.

Conversely, if the team is sitting in 7th or 8th, I wouldn't be trading away futures for a "run", either.

I don't think there's any appetite from ownership to miss the playoffs 4 or 5 years in a row, but a poor finish this season might not be the end of the world, considering some of the players that will be available in the draft.

 

[FlameChampion]

Oilers fan here. I think you need to surround your young players with some vets so they play sheltered minutes and develop properly. I think the fact that you have a first line helps in that regard. Your defense and goaltending are also solid. Without good defense and goaltending, your team if it gets off to a bad start, it will just demoralize everyone and stunt your player growth because it doesnt promote a winning culture.

I understand some people would love to tank and get McDavid. But I guess my question to Vancouver fans is even if Benning didnt pick up Miller, Vrbata, would this team even be bad enough for McDavid anyway? I dont think it would be. You would have to trade the sedins, and your good defenseman to be as bad as some of the other teams in the league. If you ended up trading the sedins and your good defense, your team may not recover because you wouldnt have any good vets to insulate your young players and you could end up in like a 5 year tailspin like the oilers.

 

[RandV]

Then I agree with you.

But picking top 5 multiple times is almost a pre-requisite nowadays for teams to ice a contender in the cap era.

Proven commodities cost too much and can neuter a team that's cap-strapped.

You need players on ELC, bridge contracts or palatable long term contracts signed before RFA status expires.

These are typically players picked in the top 5.

Welcome to 5 years ago? Funny thing happened when they implemented the salary cap, they started it way too low, and as it continued to expand by about 5 million every year, but the average impact player salary didn't rise with it. In 2005, Columbus set the bar on skipping the bridge contract and paying your star kid immediately after his ELC expires. That was a $5,400,000 cap hit. 8 Years later, Edmonton is paying their 1st overalls $6,000,000 off the ELC. This is an extreme example but that's a $30,000,000 cap ceiling growth and a $600,000 salary growth for players of that type.

Point is, those early cap years really put the squeeze on competitive teams, now though competitive teams often find themselves with cap space to spare and end up spending $4,000,000 on guys like Benout Pouliot. Teams back then that had the random luck of getting a competent roster together along with impact players on cheap 1st/2nd contracts reaped the benefit and won a few Cups.

Chicago in 2010 was the last team to win in this manner though. Four Cup winners since, all by established teams where their key contributing players with an exception or two were getting paid as such. Of course there were still contributing players on ELC's, like this years Toffoli and Pearson, but that's just the sign of a good organization in general and those guys were not top picks.

I don't get it though, you make it sound like you don't trust Canucks management team past or present to be able to find or acquire these sorts of players outside the top 5... so what makes you think if they fall to the basement they'll be good enough to pull themselves out again? Most teams are down there due to some level of incompetence or poverty, and as such continue to remain there chasing their tails.

 

[RandV]

Oilers fan here. I think you need to surround your young players with some vets so they play sheltered minutes and develop properly. I think the fact that you have a first line helps in that regard. Your defense and goaltending are also solid. Without good defense and goaltending, your team if it gets off to a bad start, it will just demoralize everyone and stunt your player growth because it doesnt promote a winning culture.

I understand some people would love to tank and get McDavid. But I guess my question to Vancouver fans is even if Benning didnt pick up Miller, Vrbata, would this team even be bad enough for McDavid anyway? I dont think it would be. You would have to trade the sedins, and your good defenseman to be as bad as some of the other teams in the league. If you ended up trading the sedins and your good defense, your team may not recover because you wouldnt have any good vets to insulate your young players and you could end up in like a 5 year tailspin like the oilers.

Hey you're starting to understand the plan that many on here want to implement, and why some are so upset and critical on Gillis over all the NTC's!

 

[drax0s]

I think for grooming young talent, I'd much rather that the team loses some close, one goal games that are just within reach. That sort of loss keeps the fire alive because you can taste it and it's just within grasp.

I think blowing up a team so much that you tend to suffer complete blowouts often (i.e. Oilers) really destroys a team's will to compete when the chips are down. You can just see the Oilers deflate when they get scored on -- they almost completely give up.

All the talent in the world can't help you if your team gives up if you happen to get scored on first or drop behind by a goal.

 

[opendoor]

To me it's less the savings from a drafted player and more the fact that it's basically impossible to acquire certain players other than by drafting them. Where do you get Doughty without drafting him? Where do you get Toews and Kane without finishing near the bottom of the league? It's just not realistic to expect the Canucks to be able to acquire that kind of talent from weaker draft positions. It might happen, but there's a far better chance that it won't.

And people bring up Boston but that's a tough model to replicate. Chara is what drives the team and it's pretty unlikely the Canucks will ever be able to get a player like that in free agency. And the rest of their team is built on a great/lucky stretch of drafting almost a decade ago (and yes, luck definitely plays a role given that their drafting outside the 1st round since then has been mostly junk).

 

[Alan Jackson]

To me it's less the savings from a drafted player and more the fact that it's basically impossible to acquire certain players other than by drafting them. Where do you get Doughty without drafting him? Where do you get Toews and Kane without finishing near the bottom of the league? It's just not realistic to expect the Canucks to be able to acquire that kind of talent from weaker draft positions. It might happen, but there's a far better chance that it won't.

And people bring up Boston but that's a tough model to replicate. Chara is what drives the team and it's pretty unlikely the Canucks will ever be able to get a player like that in free agency. And the rest of their team is built on a great/lucky stretch of drafting almost a decade ago (and yes, luck definitely plays a role given that their drafting outside the 1st round since then has been mostly junk).

The 2 drafts before Kane and Toews, the Hawks drafted Jack Skille 7th and Cam Barker 3rd, so top picks aren't any guarantee of success, either. Between 1997-2009, they made the playoffs once and had several top-10 picks that didn't pan out.

Not all drafts are created equal - you have to be bad in the right year and get the right player.

There are several ways to build a winner, and purposefully icing a bad team is a huge risk.

 

[ChilliBilly]

The 2 drafts before Kane and Toews, the Hawks drafted Jack Skille 7th and Cam Barker 3rd, so top picks aren't any guarantee of success, either. Between 1997-2009, they made the playoffs once and had several top-10 picks that didn't pan out.

Not all drafts are created equal - you have to be bad in the right year and get the right player.

There are several ways to build a winner, and purposefully icing a bad team is a huge risk.

Very very well put. Chicago hit home runs with Toews and Kane. And the exact opposite with Skille and Barker.

Here's hoping we got a steal in Shinkaruk (I suggested the player he reminds me of is Mike Bossy) and that Horvat Virtanen McCann and a few of the others hit their potential. We could have a hell of a team. OH, and I am one of only 4 season ticket holders who wants to retool rather than tank? I don't see tanking as working, trying to get a great draft pick means you pretty much have to gut the team and then build around the player. Its sure worked well for Edm, who has had ... what ... 8 years of great drafting position? 3 - 7 -1 -1 -1 -10 -22 - (6 & 15) since 2007.

 

[Dezmoto]

The 2 drafts before Kane and Toews, the Hawks drafted Jack Skille 7th and Cam Barker 3rd, so top picks aren't any guarantee of success, either. Between 1997-2009, they made the playoffs once and had several top-10 picks that didn't pan out.

Not all drafts are created equal - you have to be bad in the right year and get the right player.

There are several ways to build a winner, and purposefully icing a bad team is a huge risk.

This is the point I'm trying to make, thank you.

 

[D0ctorCool]

Then I agree with you.

But picking top 5 multiple times is almost a pre-requisite nowadays for teams to ice a contender in the cap era...

Wow. You were on fire last night. Couldn't have said it any better myself!

 

[opendoor]

Boston had very few of their own draft picks playing on their cup team, so I don't know where you get that from. That team's core was built from trades and free agency when they pretty much had to do a "do over" after trading Joe Thornton for players they ended up moving to Calgary a couple of years later.

The number of players means far less than the quality. Boston drafted their top 3 scorers from their cup win (Bergeron, Krecji, and Marchand) and also had Lucic and Seguin on there. Those drafted players also make up their current core.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Teams that have been tanking forever without success: Fla, NYI and Edmonton
Teams built on high picks: Pitts and Chicago (but good luck following the Pitts model).
Teams that have built primarily on good drafting without tanking: LA (got Doughty as a high pick but their only top three pick), San Jose, Boston, St Louis and, of course Detroit.

Pick your poison but I see no sure fire winning model to build a contender.

 

[topheavyhookjaw]

This debate is borderline pointless though, there's an ownership group here that won't let a GM punt a season, let alone 3. There may be merits to tanking, and it certainly has helped some franchises, but if this ownership group won't greenlight 3 years without playoffs it's not going to happen here. And if it did, there would be pressure to move picks/prospects for immediate help.

Further to that, and I said this in another thread, I watch the team, post on message boards, engage on twitter about the Canucks, and get drunk with my dad and talk hockey because it's fun. There's nothing fun about losing on purpose. I mean, I'd rather this team get the number one pick through glaring incompetence and disaster, then through some sort of calculated decision not to compete for a year or three.

I look at Pittsburgh and still see a franchise that doesn't deserve a team because of the gross tank job for Mario, and the subsequent almost loss of a franchise and bailout by the league for Sid. It's an absolute joke that the city has a team.

The only way the McDavid dream lives is if we see Henrik tear an ACL in the first third of the season.

And besides, with the Canucks luck, they'll change the lottery system/rules the year that we are frontrunners for the #1 pick.

 

[ihaveyuidonttouchme]

This debate is borderline pointless though, there's an ownership group here that won't let a GM punt a season, let alone 3. There may be merits to tanking, and it certainly has helped some franchises, but if this ownership group won't greenlight 3 years without playoffs it's not going to happen here. And if it did, there would be pressure to move picks/prospects for immediate help.

Further to that, and I said this in another thread, I watch the team, post on message boards, engage on twitter about the Canucks, and get drunk with my dad and talk hockey because it's fun. There's nothing fun about losing on purpose. I mean, I'd rather this team get the number one pick through glaring incompetence and disaster, then through some sort of calculated decision not to compete for a year or three.

I look at Pittsburgh and still see a franchise that doesn't deserve a team because of the gross tank job for Mario, and the subsequent almost loss of a franchise and bailout by the league for Sid. It's an absolute joke that the city has a team.

The only way the McDavid dream lives is if we see Henrik tear an ACL in the first third of the season.

And besides, with the Canucks luck, they'll change the lottery system/rules the year that we are frontrunners for the #1 pick.

agreed on the ownership part.

also on the mcdavid part, if we for some reason did everything right but for some ****ed up reason, we ends up on the bottom like Colorado in the shortened season...now that would be something