[Signing] Canucks sign Vrbata (2yrs, $5mil AAV, limited NTC)

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

you seem to have a real personal stake in 'crushing illusions' soothsayer

I don't have any goggle's on, I have no clue whether those picks or any of the others made by any of the other teams, no one does, that's why half the best players in a draft end up being picked after the 1st round

You seem like me saying the chances of those recent first rounders turning into elite players is "slim to none" upset you quite a bit. Nevertheless, I stand by my assessment.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

most people wait at least a 3-5 years to judge a draft, but you have it figured out 1 year after one, and 6 days after the other

Bravo

Totally agree, but even you can agree, it's safe to say they're at least 3 years away. What until then?

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I, for one, really hope that Vancouver is good enough to make the playoffs. Not just the 'almost' team at that 9th spot that is the supposed worst spot to finish. I want them to make it in the 8th spot, and lose in the first round.

The more often this happens, the more time it will take for that franchise to start rebuilding. If they finish 9th, suddenly they might become more cognizant of the fact that they need to do so. Besides, it is always fun to watch them lose as they get matched up with a competent western team.

A lot of people assume that somehow a team finishing 9th or 8th and losing in the first round will result in a team trading away futures to improve the present. Not every GM is like Jay Feaster and most teams don't go for an Edmonton style rebuild. Benning is too new to predict, but the Canucks started the process of retooling on the fly a couple of years ago. Even here, if Burke and Treliving were here earlier, the team might not even trade Bouwmeester. The only reason this team would have traded Iginla was because he wanted a chance at the Cup. In other words, the Detroit model is still the most frequently followed model. It's about making the playoffs every year, playing an exciting brand of hockey, and drafting and patiently developing your own players. We've been lucky having been in a position to draft Monahan and Bennett but that wasn't necessary if we managed to draft and develop better. I mean you don't even need to go too far. What if instead of drafting Nemisz and Wahl we drafted Carlson and Stepan? What if the next year instead of drafting Erixon and Howse we drafted Ryan O'Reilly and Cody Eakin?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

The chances of those picks turning into top line game breakers is slim to none.

Like I said, enjoy hovering around that area that's not good enough to make the playoffs and just outside where elite players are typically chosen in the draft. That seems to be the plan for the next few years for Vancouver.

Hitmen haters love to trash Virtanen. Central Scouting listed Jarome Iginla as a potential comparable. Far too soon to make those proclamations.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by FAN

A lot of people assume that somehow a team finishing 9th or 8th and losing in the first round will result in a team trading away futures to improve the present. Not every GM is like Jay Feaster and most teams don't go for an Edmonton style rebuild. Benning is too new to predict, but the Canucks started the process of retooling on the fly a couple of years ago. Even here, if Burke and Treliving were here earlier, the team might not even trade Bouwmeester. The only reason this team would have traded Iginla was because he wanted a chance at the Cup. In other words, the Detroit model is still the most frequently followed model. It's about making the playoffs every year, playing an exciting brand of hockey, and drafting and patiently developing your own players. We've been lucky having been in a position to draft Monahan and Bennett but that wasn't necessary if we managed to draft and develop better. I mean you don't even need to go too far. What if instead of drafting Nemisz and Wahl we drafted Carlson and Stepan? What if the next year instead of drafting Erixon and Howse we drafted Ryan O'Reilly and Cody Eakin?

Preaching to the choir here.

Competent and well-managed teams should never have to 'tear it down'. They should be a well drafting team that makes shrewd trades and shrewd FA signings to remain competitive every year. That is the 'ideal', of course.

With that being said, very few teams are able to replicate this. The Detroit model is no longer really working - I don't classify them as a top team any longer. Also, how many cup winners since the lockout haven't had a top 5 pick? I think it is only Detroit.

Edmonton cut way too deeply, and mismanaged everything. They are not the poster team for a rebuild - they are the poster team for mismanagement. Buffalo didn't cut as deeply as Edmonton did, and they managed to sign some decent FA talent to not guarantee themselves last place (though definitely not a competitive team). Edmonton is NOT what should be looked at as a 'rebuild' - it is what should be looked at as an embarrassment.

Vancouver (IMO) is probably not ready for a rebuild. I can't comment on their development program as I have no clue about it. Their drafting is suspect. Unless they have made changes in that area (philosophical and with more bodies who are experienced), then they will fail if they attempted it now I would guess.

I like Calgary's rebuild because the 'rebuild' started years ago under Darryl. He greatly expanded the scouting department and actually put in place a development program. You could see the drafting start trending up (though it was slow - but the philosophy evolved into 'high hockey IQ and character' as required traits along with skill and size - and people forget that Sutter drafted smaller and highly skilled players that never amounted to much, so it wasn't just a fixation on size).

Feaster entered into stage two - stopped trading picks, and added more scouting staff. Sutter kept trading picks (IMO), especially 2nd rounders, due to the pressure of 'winning now' and probably realizing how terrible the drafting was anyways. Those picks were probably more valuable organizational as trade assets than actual drafting assets at the time.

The biggest reason why Edmonton's rebuild has completely sucked is because they have had a terrible drafting and development program there. That is why it fell apart. That is why you see budget teams (for the most part - there are exceptions) unable to draft well even though they seemingly have high picks every year. They can't afford to have an expanded scouting staff.

I wonder if Calgary decided to enter into a 'traditional rebuild' in 2010, if they would have been any good (aside from a weaker series of top picks). They were just beginning to become a better drafting team, and the return on a number of players would have been substantially better. I am not sure in the long run if it would be better, as scouting is probably the most important element of a rebuild.

I 100% agree that teams shouldn't have to enter into a traditional rebuild if they are well-managed. However, even the Detroit model seems to have stopped being effective. Do you think they are a contender? A team doesn't have to be as awful and for as long as Edmonton has. People argue they burned it to the ground - but they didn't. They didn't replace their most critical areas before the rebuild started - management and scouting staff (though they have made moves in both areas since then, but seem to have no vision or philosophy other than what THN throws out at the draft).

Buffalo and Calgary are 'doing it right' in my opinion in terms of rebuilding - though nothing is proven until it is completed. They both have owners willing to spend to the cap, and competent scouting and development departments. It did not have to come to this, but at least they were both 'ready' for a traditional rebuild.

Vancouver I don't think is, and that is why I want them to either burn it to the ground (which they simply won't - not every team is 'Edmonton Stupid'), or remain a 7th to 8th seed playoff team that gets annihilated in the first round. I don't think their scouting department is competent enough to find good enough talent regularly at where they draft at to maintain being a quality team.

Edit: Also, I think every team in the NHL is continually rebuilding - LA is in the process of rebuilding. Teams that are not able to supplement through the draft and through solid trades/FA signings will crash down. In essence, everyone is rebuilding, but the degree (or aggressiveness) to which it happens is a variable depending on a variety of factors.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I 100% agree that teams shouldn't have to enter into a traditional rebuild if they are well-managed. However, even the Detroit model seems to have stopped being effective. Do you think they are a contender? A team doesn't have to be as awful and for as long as Edmonton has. People argue they burned it to the ground - but they didn't. They didn't replace their most critical areas before the rebuild started - management and scouting staff (though they have made moves in both areas since then, but seem to have no vision or philosophy other than what THN throws out at the draft).

The "Detroit model" (actually originated by the Canadiens) depends on enough quality draft picks coming in to replace the aging veterans going out. The Wings are losing skill faster than they are currently acquiring it, thus the problem. A couple decades of terrible drafting forced the Oilers and Flames into full rebuilds for the same reason - the dearth of talent coming in completely overwhelmed the teams' ability to compete.

Vancouver's problem is that they are far closer to Calgary and Edmonton than they are the 90s Red Wings and 70s Canadiens. They struck-out completely in the 2007 draft. The only player from 2008 (Hodgson) they traded for magic beans. 2009 didn't turn into much (Schroeder, Connaughton). 2010 was a bust, and I have little reason to expect that any top end talent will be found from their 2011 and 2012 picks. So the Canucks are desperately hoping that Horvat, Shinkaruk and Virtanen turn into something, but these guys are probably 2-3 years away from being terribly useful NHL players.

Since we love the comparisons to the Flames in this thread, I would probably line Vancouver's 2013 draft with our 2011. They really want Horvat and Shinkaruk to step up and be great players. For us, having Granlund, Wotherspoon and Baertschi step into the NHL as players of quality would move our team forward in a hurry. Problem for Vancouver is they are behind us on the development timeline and I'm not seeing those guys as the types to make quantum leaps like Monahan did.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

With that being said, very few teams are able to replicate this. The Detroit model is no longer really working - I don't classify them as a top team any longer. Also, how many cup winners since the lockout haven't had a top 5 pick? I think it is only Detroit.

No the Red Wings aren't a top team anymore, but that doesn't mean their model doesn't work. After the Bowman Cup years the Red Wings weren't contenders either but they managed to replace that Cup winning forward core with another one. It remains to be seen whether they can do it again. As for how many Cup winners since the lockout that haven't had a top 5 pick, technically it is only Detroit. But in terms of contributions, you can argue that Boston didn't need a top 5 pick to win the Cup. Regardless, it is a model to strive for.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Edit: Also, I think every team in the NHL is continually rebuilding - LA is in the process of rebuilding. Teams that are not able to supplement through the draft and through solid trades/FA signings will crash down. In essence, everyone is rebuilding, but the degree (or aggressiveness) to which it happens is a variable depending on a variety of factors.

I think the more common usage is "retooling". LA is certainly not rebuilding after they won a Cup.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The "Detroit model" (actually originated by the Canadiens) depends on enough quality draft picks coming in to replace the aging veterans going out. The Wings are losing skill faster than they are currently acquiring it, thus the problem. A couple decades of terrible drafting forced the Oilers and Flames into full rebuilds for the same reason - the dearth of talent coming in completely overwhelmed the teams' ability to compete.

Vancouver's problem is that they are far closer to Calgary and Edmonton than they are the 90s Red Wings and 70s Canadiens. They struck-out completely in the 2007 draft. The only player from 2008 (Hodgson) they traded for magic beans. 2009 didn't turn into much (Schroeder, Connaughton). 2010 was a bust, and I have little reason to expect that any top end talent will be found from their 2011 and 2012 picks. So the Canucks are desperately hoping that Horvat, Shinkaruk and Virtanen turn into something, but these guys are probably 2-3 years away from being terribly useful NHL players.

Since we love the comparisons to the Flames in this thread, I would probably line Vancouver's 2013 draft with our 2011. They really want Horvat and Shinkaruk to step up and be great players. For us, having Granlund, Wotherspoon and Baertschi step into the NHL as players of quality would move our team forward in a hurry. Problem for Vancouver is they are behind us on the development timeline and I'm not seeing those guys as the types to make quantum leaps like Monahan did.

Yeah there's simply no escaping poor drafting no matter who you are. Even teams that are loaded with top end talent can get away with it for only a period of time but just look at the Penguins and you can see that the years of not drafting solid NHL players is beginning to take a toll as they may be forced to take a step back from cup contender to just playoff team. Middling teams like the Flames and Canucks that rode aging core without supplementing through the draft are on collision courses with a full scale rebuild.

There's a prevailing theory in Vancouver that the fanbase there isn't strong enough to endure a full scorched rebuild and that's what's preventing the inevitable. Kind of funny given the Flames ownership postponed the rebuild here for the same reasons in that they were terrified of seeing the Dome revert to pre-2003 attendance levels. Sometimes you have to give your fans the benefit of the doubt and be honest with them rather than try and carry on a charade that you are trying to win now when everyone including the fans know the team is simply treading water in hopes of keeping bums in seats and not truly eyeing the prize.

[EldrickOnIce]

Not entirely sure how this talk of blowing up the Canucks is even relevant. The Sedans have no real value. Who would take that at this stage with that term and $?
They haven't given up picks, they have gained picks and got younger.
You could move D for the future - that would be their only move, and I'm not sure how valuable that is anyway.

They have guaranteed mediocrity for the foreseeable future. How is this a bad thing?

[R0taryRocket]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Vancouver's problem is that they are far closer to Calgary and Edmonton than they are the 90s Red Wings and 70s Canadiens. They struck-out completely in the 2007 draft. The only player from 2008 (Hodgson) they traded for magic beans. 2009 didn't turn into much (Schroeder, Connaughton). 2010 was a bust, and I have little reason to expect that any top end talent will be found from their 2011 and 2012 picks. So the Canucks are desperately hoping that Horvat, Shinkaruk and Virtanen turn into something, but these guys are probably 2-3 years away from being terribly useful NHL players.

Not much of anything has materialized in 2009 for any team picking that low in the draft. Trading Grabner/1st round pick for Keith Ballard in 2010 was the bust.

Vancouver won the president' trophy twice and their division a number of times between 2008-2013. The fact that Vancouver has anything in the prospect pool with some bad trades and low draft picks is pleasantly surprising.

I'm sticking with my season's tickets (Vancouver), so my money is where my mouth is. I like the moves Calgary has made in their rebuild. I look forward to 2-3 years when both teams are (hopefully) competing for something other than the toilet bowl.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by R0taryRocket

I look forward to 2-3 years when both teams are (hopefully) competing for something other than the toilet bowl.

Yeah things were much more fun when both teams were good. Being less bad than the other team just isn't as much of an achievement unless the other team is the Oilers as being worse than them is kind of embarrassing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by R0taryRocket

Not much of anything has materialized in 2009 for any team picking that low in the draft. Trading Grabner/1st round pick for Keith Ballard in 2010 was the bust.

Vancouver won the president' trophy twice and their division a number of times between 2008-2013. The fact that Vancouver has anything in the prospect pool with some bad trades and low draft picks is pleasantly surprising.

I'm sticking with my season's tickets (Vancouver), so my money is where my mouth is. I like the moves Calgary has made in their rebuild. I look forward to 2-3 years when both teams are (hopefully) competing for something other than the toilet bowl.

+1 to you for sticking around. However, "we drafted low" is a copout. Drafting top ten every year is not by itself the way to keep a positive talent flow. For us, guys like Monahan and Bennett are huge pieces. But we're also counting on late first rounders (Poirier, Klimchuk) and mid-rounders (Wotherspoon, Granlund, Gaudreau, Gillies, Ortio - even Brodie and Bouma) to become solid building blocks.

I won't claim to have a deep understanding of your prospects, but what I do know, coupled with some of the online reviews I am finding gives me pause. After your top two (pre-draft; Shinkaruk and Horvat), it looks like most of the prospects you do have project to "average, at best":

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/puck...articleid=1580

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/teams/vancouver_canucks/

The Canucks need a couple of these C-level prospects to make quantum leaps. Or they need to find Giordano-like finds among undrafted players if they hope to avoid falling into the pit Calgary did.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The "Detroit model" (actually originated by the Canadiens) depends on enough quality draft picks coming in to replace the aging veterans going out. The Wings are losing skill faster than they are currently acquiring it, thus the problem. A couple decades of terrible drafting forced the Oilers and Flames into full rebuilds for the same reason - the dearth of talent coming in completely overwhelmed the teams' ability to compete.

Vancouver's problem is that they are far closer to Calgary and Edmonton than they are the 90s Red Wings and 70s Canadiens. They struck-out completely in the 2007 draft. The only player from 2008 (Hodgson) they traded for magic beans. 2009 didn't turn into much (Schroeder, Connaughton). 2010 was a bust, and I have little reason to expect that any top end talent will be found from their 2011 and 2012 picks. So the Canucks are desperately hoping that Horvat, Shinkaruk and Virtanen turn into something, but these guys are probably 2-3 years away from being terribly useful NHL players.

Since we love the comparisons to the Flames in this thread, I would probably line Vancouver's 2013 draft with our 2011. They really want Horvat and Shinkaruk to step up and be great players. For us, having Granlund, Wotherspoon and Baertschi step into the NHL as players of quality would move our team forward in a hurry. Problem for Vancouver is they are behind us on the development timeline and I'm not seeing those guys as the types to make quantum leaps like Monahan did.

Totally agree - and that is my point with the Red Wings. I think that is what every organization should strive for, but sometimes things just don't pan out and you are forced into a more aggressive rebuild. Only part I disagree with is with the Hodgson trade - Kassian does look more and more like a contributing piece to the future, just don't think he will become as important a piece as fans are claiming him to become (which is understandable when an organization is lacking in prospect depth - Flames fans overvalued many a prospect not that long ago).

Originally Posted by FAN

No the Red Wings aren't a top team anymore, but that doesn't mean their model doesn't work. After the Bowman Cup years the Red Wings weren't contenders either but they managed to replace that Cup winning forward core with another one. It remains to be seen whether they can do it again. As for how many Cup winners since the lockout that haven't had a top 5 pick, technically it is only Detroit. But in terms of contributions, you can argue that Boston didn't need a top 5 pick to win the Cup. Regardless, it is a model to strive for.

I think the more common usage is "retooling". LA is certainly not rebuilding after they won a Cup.

I am not disagreeing with the Detroit model, but they also got extremely lucky in drafting Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Not that long ago the organization itself stated this as fact, and even said something along the lines of "Had they known they would be this good, they would have selected them much earlier in the draft." It is not a faulty model, nor is it an inferior one at all. This is ideally what all teams should strive for (and one I hope the Flames adopt for the long run), but it is something that even the best drafting teams historically are unable to keep up it seems.

Boston for sure did not need that top 5 pick, but their excellent drafting was supplemented exceptionally well through trades and FA signings. Fits the Detroit model, and it will be interesting to see how they manage to keep it up.

All 30 teams in the NHL - regardless of success - should be in some form of a rebuild of sorts. That's the way I see it anyways. "Retool" to me is just a euphemism for a more gradual rebuild conducted through the same channels as a 'traditional rebuild' - drafting, FA signings, trades - but at a reduced rate than a traditional (aggressive) rebuild is.

So yes, LA is in a state of a rebuild, just not as aggressive as teams like Calgary, Buffalo and Edmonton are (of course).

Either way, Vancouver seems to be in trouble if they haven't adjusted their drafting and development programs yet (which, once again, I am not sure if they have or not). Their star players are getting older and less effective, and if they don't manage to infuse their team fairly quickly through the draft, they will have no choice really but to enter into an aggressive rebuild. They better be sure they are up to the task, or they will end up like the Oilers.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I am not disagreeing with the Detroit model, but they also got extremely lucky in drafting Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Not that long ago the organization itself stated this as fact, and even said something along the lines of "Had they known they would be this good, they would have selected them much earlier in the draft." It is not a faulty model, nor is it an inferior one at all. This is ideally what all teams should strive for (and one I hope the Flames adopt for the long run), but it is something that even the best drafting teams historically are unable to keep up it seems.

...

All 30 teams in the NHL - regardless of success - should be in some form of a rebuild of sorts. That's the way I see it anyways. "Retool" to me is just a euphemism for a more gradual rebuild conducted through the same channels as a 'traditional rebuild' - drafting, FA signings, trades - but at a reduced rate than a traditional (aggressive) rebuild is.

So yes, LA is in a state of a rebuild, just not as aggressive as teams like Calgary, Buffalo and Edmonton are (of course).

Ya Detroit did get lucky but I think after continued success it becomes part luck and part skill. Detroit has not been able to replace Datsyuk and Zetterberg yet, then again, you might be able to find 2 forwards drafted in the top 5 in the past 10 years that are as good as those two guys. They also have not yet drafted another Kronwall. But there's no question that their drafting and development have kept them afloat. Last season was probably the year in which Detroit faced the biggest risk of missing the playoffs. But guys like Nyquist, Tatar helped hold the team up. They've also drafted some bonafide 2nd line players along the way (Hudler, Filppula). Mantha looks like a stud.

I will disagree with your definition of rebuild vs retool. There's a reason why the word retool has come into common usage. Teams that strip down their core are rebuilding. Teams that keep their core and change out complementary players are retooling.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Either way, Vancouver seems to be in trouble if they haven't adjusted their drafting and development programs yet (which, once again, I am not sure if they have or not). Their star players are getting older and less effective, and if they don't manage to infuse their team fairly quickly through the draft, they will have no choice really but to enter into an aggressive rebuild. They better be sure they are up to the task, or they will end up like the Oilers.

They have been adjusting their drafting and development programs just like we have. They've put another guy in charge of their amateur scouting and obviously Benning is now onboard. Just don't know if any of that will lead to success.

[GoJetsGo]

What does Detroit have to do with Vancouver?

Detroit has won several cups with their core and has some of the best scouting in hockey.

I'm at a loss as to what them supplementing a championship caliber team with excellent drafting has to do with Vancouver who have a soft core devoid of character and average drafting at best?

[mister__big]

Vancouver has one of the worst records in the league when it comes to drafting. Until this is fixed, it doesn't matter how many times they rebuild the team.

Signing free agents can only get you so far, having home grown talent as your team's core players is the best way to win a cup.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

What does Detroit have to do with Vancouver?

Detroit has won several cups with their core and has some of the best scouting in hockey.

I'm at a loss as to what them supplementing a championship caliber team with excellent drafting has to do with Vancouver who have a soft core devoid of character and average drafting at best?

For example: Detroit has Anthony Mantha, who as a 19 year old scored 81 goals this year in 81 games. He's also very large and skates like the wind. Vancouver has....Horvat who... is good defensively?

[OzSome]

Oooops sorry I guess wrong thread. I wanted to see what people think of Vrbata signing with the Canucks. I rarely see the guy play but just wondering if he's capable scoring 70 points this season.

[Resolute 14]

Given he's never scored 70 in his life, and that he is on the downslope of his career, I think reaching that total is mighty unlikely.

[OzSome]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Given he's never scored 70 in his life, and that he is on the downslope of his career, I think reaching that total is mighty unlikely.

Thanks Resolute. My friend who is a Canuck fan was bragging about Vancouver's signing and trades this off season and then he started telling me Vrbata will get over 70 points this season. Like I said I don't watch the guy and never really pay attention to him but when he said 70 points, I just jumped on the chances to hopefully make him eat his words after the season and did a friendly wages.

Isn't Vrbata more like a two-way player which focuses more defensively? I just don't much about him.