Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
I completely agree. All I am saying is that a solid team can still be built around that core. And they don't need the Sedins getting 100 points to do it.
|
What constitutes a "solid team" in your mind? Is this a team that competes for the Stanley Cup, a perennial playoff team, or one that struggles to qualify from one year to the next? Do you see a solid team with this same core much beyond next season?
I disagree about the Sedins. I think that they do need to be +1.00 point/game players for the present iteration of the Canucks to be successful. This is because beyond that top line there is very little offensive support. The Canucks have always been a top-heavy offensive team, but were successful because of just how good the Sedins once were. They are declining now, and with that decline, there is no compensation from their depth players as the Canucks move forward. I suppose that efforts could be made to supplement the current group with better depth players in the bottom-nine, but I don't see it happening. There are simply too many upgrades that need to be made for this to occur.
I will say it again: The Canucks are probably better, and their players are better than they showed this season. But this does not mean they are a very good team. They have an ageing core and little offensive depth. This is a team that is probably in the mix for the playoffs next year, maybe the year after, but I don't believe there is an opening any longer for this group to make a meaningful push for a championship. If they are no where close now, and even further from this goal in the near future, then I would suggest that this is probably not a very "solid team" at all.