[News] TSN: Tortorella fired - now official.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

^ No team is perfect - if there are holes in the core or the secondary scoring, or whatever - fix them

'Fix them'.

Well, how?

Answer: By dealing away established veterans for quantity, like Kesler, Edler, Bieksa and Burrows for blue chippers and picks.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. That's how you plug Roman Cervenka into the lineup to address your centre depth.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I agree, but you have to admit, the future doesn't look very good and the Sedins can't be the hub of the wheel going forward. The sisters are 33, Bieksa is 32 (and plays a "high mileage" game) and Hamhuis is 31. Kesler may (IMO, likely) be on his way out via trade at his request (perhaps this was part of the canning Torts equation). They managed to let two #1 goalies go with questionable returns.

They're a mess. A couple more years that will mirror the Flames circa 2009-2012 where they'll acquire complimentary pieces to the Sedins and veteran defensemen. Then a steady decline after that.

Linden is in the opposite position as Burke. He has a bunch of veterans with term left on their contracts versus a virtual clean slate with a lot of the heavy lifting finished. Burke hired an up and coming hockey mind (results TBD) whereas Linden needs a veteran GM/retread. And ownership is very worried about the fickle Canucks fan not showing up.

I think you'll see the Canucks rebound slightly because they'll be out from under Torts, but will battle and end up 8-10th for a few seasons. Their division is just to tough to see that team having any success. Painful times ahead for the Canucks organization.

I don't disagree with you.

But I think those players are much better than what we saw this year under Torts.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

'Fix them'.

Well, how?

Answer: By dealing away established veterans for quantity, like Kesler, Edler, Bieksa and Burrows for blue chippers and picks.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. That's how you plug Roman Cervenka into the lineup to address your centre depth.

Again with the 'the Flames failed, therefore it is a failure of a strategy'

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't disagree with you.

But I think those players are much better than what we saw this year under Torts.

They're better, but I don't believe that they are "much better". I expect a moderate rebound from the Sedins, a similar year for Kesler, and a modest improvement for the team next season. The Canucks success came on the back of two +100 point players, a second line centre who could score 30 goals, and a goalie who won 45 games. None of this is ever happening again with the current group.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Again with the 'the Flames failed, therefore it is a failure of a strategy'

No, it's more like "There are holes and the only one offering suggestions on how to fix them is me."

If you have 6 defensemen under contract, how do you add 1 or 2 right handed shots without trading away a defender? Which one do you trade when 5 of them have NTC/NMC?

This isn't rocket science, there is a roster limit and a cap ceiling. You can't just conjure up players to play in positions. Again, that's how you get the Brunner, Cervenka

So far, your answer has been, Flames fans are too dependent on the declining canuck narrative when all the canucks need to do with the problems on their roster is 'fix them'.

Gee, if only all problems could be solved with 'we'll just fix them'.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Again with the 'the Flames failed, therefore it is a failure of a strategy'

Agreed. It was the execution that failed, not the strategy.

But, to execute this strategy requires a really good GM that can maximize value. Linden/GM is more likely to be YVR's Riseborough than their GM messiah (all the talk is that they are going first time GM route too, but Linden is not adult supervision ala Burke IMO).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

They're better, but I don't believe that they are "much better". I expect a moderate rebound from the Sedins, a similar year for Kesler, and a modest improvement for the team next season. The Canucks success came on the back of two +100 point players, a second line centre who could score 30 goals, and a goalie who won 45 games. None of this is ever happening again with the current group.

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.

[McG]

Is the question a hybrid of "is the core as bad as it looked this year" and "can the team be as good as it once was with the existing players"?

I remember reading that tortorella liked to play his top players alot; I don't have Canuck ice time minutes at hand but I have to think that older players can't just add significant ice time without an increased risk of injury especially when tortorella wanted blocked shots and a tighter defensive style. I do think that the Canuck core is better than this season, but a year older and no guarantee about injuries or the style of play.

I think that the only way to leverage the existing core is to drop ice time for the core and supplement the meat and potato minutes with younger players. unfortunately for the Canucks, they don't appear to have farm team prospects but could rely upon UFAs and perhaps some good trades.

I don't think the Canuck are as bad as we saw this season, but I don't think they will be more than a 7 or 8 seed without super trades, UFAs, and/or surprise prospects suddenly developing.

[Textcritic]

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.

[GoJetsGo]

Vancouver's in tough. Any obstacles they need to overcome are magnified when considering how many times they'll play Anaheim, LA and San Jose per season in the next few years. They will be on the losing end against those teams every season, and will be banged up in the process. They're a team on the decline, facing tougher competition as a whole. Not a good mix.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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.

I did not say they were a solid team, I said a solid team could still be built around that core. And a point per game for the Sedins makes them 70-80 pt guys (which I think is still possible for them for the next couple years with the proper supporting cast), not 100 pt guys (which is not).

and by 'a solid team', I am talking Minnesota solid, not Chicago solid

Look, I am not trying to suggest that the Canucks are an awesome team here. I am merely arguing that supporting a solid core is probably a better plan for them than tearing down the team.

Hard core fans like us talk about winning the cup or nothing. But for the vast majority of fans, it is about having a good team - winning games and making the playoffs. The business is entertainment, not a forum for arm-chair general managers.

[Robbob]

they do have some key pieces in that core that maybe you could squeeze a playoff team, I do agree with that. I think the Canucks are at a bit of a disadvantage right now because they are in limbo right now. Linden is over his head right now. By the sounds of it they are looking at a couple a AGM's whose teams are still playing. That being the case they are getting to that time where if they bring one of those guys on board, they will not be able to participate in the draft. I wouldn't go as far as saying it is a waste of an off season, but it does handicap the new guy.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I did not say they were a solid team, I said a solid team could still be built around that core. And a point per game for the Sedins makes them 70-80 pt guys (which I think is still possible for them for the next couple years with the proper supporting cast), not 100 pt guys (which is not).

and by 'a solid team', I am talking Minnesota solid, not Chicago solid

Look, I am not trying to suggest that the Canucks are an awesome team here. I am merely arguing that supporting a solid core is probably a better plan for them than tearing down the team.

Hard core fans like us talk about winning the cup or nothing. But for the vast majority of fans, it is about having a good team - winning games and making the playoffs. The business is entertainment, not a forum for arm-chair general managers.

See, from my perspective that seems like a terrible idea. I get the fact that it's not ideal to move out all your veterans and blow it up completely, but honestly do you really want a core of soft, diving, chirping vets that are leading and teaching your prospects how to be a pro?

The Canucks are in a lose-lose situation this off-season. The value of their prized vets is at an all time low and that dressing room is bound to be cancerous come next season.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Canucks move a couple players out and take another stab at the playoffs with a new coach. Just to show that it was Tortorella's fault thereby destroying his coaching future forever.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Vancouver's in tough. Any obstacles they need to overcome are magnified when considering how many times they'll play Anaheim, LA and San Jose per season in the next few years. They will be on the losing end against those teams every season, and will be banged up in the process. They're a team on the decline, facing tougher competition as a whole. Not a good mix.

Good point. If you assume the Canucks can get back to their 12-13 form, does that even put them in the playoffs with the realignment. In 12-13 the Flames, Oilers and Avs were all bottom 7 teams and Minnesota wasn't exactly a powerhouse either. Now they have to deal with the California teams in their division. They were propped up by being in a terrible division and them exposed in the playoffs the few years before this one.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

TEAM Radio ‏@TEAM1040 4m Trotz on Canucks job: I'm interested in every job that's out there right now. Absolutely. But I'm not in any hurry