Yet another long-winded rant shoehorned into its own topic.

[Lloyd Braun]

Plain and simple, they are prospects. Only the elite few are classified beyond that.

At draft age there is still plenty of room to grow and deviate from their roles on their junior teams.

I should've addressed this yesterday, but I must have been blinded by the glare from nuckster's post immediately below.

This statement you've made is clearly correct -- correct enough to be self-evident, IMO.

However, I can't agree with the implied conclusion. Just because a prospect's apparent skillset won't necessarily match his final skillset as a developed player, that does not lessen the importance of putting young players in a position to succeed using the skills they currently have. If a prospect grows into a dramatically different player in the NHL, then wonderful, but you can't force it.

Burrows is a great example of how to do it right. He came up as a checker, and was used as a checker until he started to gain confidence in the offensive zone, after which he was given opportunities to expand his repertoire.

On the other hand, you don't take an 18-year-old scoring prospect, thrust him into the NHL at an early age, stick him in an unfamiliar role, which is completely different from every role he's played on every team he's ever been on, take away his safety-net by giving him enough games that he can't be sent down, and expect him to succeed.

If that same 18-year-old reaches his early 20s -- an age when many of his peers are making their way into the NHL -- and he doesn't appear to have reached a high enough offensive ceiling to become an NHL scorer, then yeah, you sit down with him and encourage him to make changes in his game so that he can be effective in a lesser role. Until then, you absolutely encourage every player to develop their play in the defensive zone, which is a must for any role on an NHL team... but you don't have to put them in a defense-first situation in order to accomplish that.

You certainly don't have him play six minutes per night on a fourth line.

[Jovocop]

Edler's a totally different puzzle. Speaking of things I've been wrong about, I was once known to say "Once Edler puts it all together, I bet he'll at least be nominated for a Norris by the end of his career." Yup, that was very wrong. It sounds like a really dumb thing to say, but was it so dumb at the time? I dunno. He has literally every physical skill you want to see in a defenseman. We've seen flashes of him playing an elite physical game, stepping up to absolutely crush forwards... once in a blue moon. We've seen him score at a near 50 point pace over three consecutive seasons (09/10 - 11/12), which is truly exceptional production from the back end. We've seen his blistering, 100mph+ slapshot. We've seen how his footspeed is certainly above-average for a man his size. What's not to like about his physical skills? Absolutely nothing. He should be a Norris candidate. Yet he isn't, and at this point in his career, it's safe to say he never will be.

Despite all his mental gaffs, and not being equal to the sum of his parts (in a bad way), Edler has -- until this year -- been at least a solid second pairing defenseman, and top unit powerplay scorer. His salary reflects that, and doesn't go overboard the way Brian Campbell's does. What about this year? He's one of those guys I mentioned way back in the OP, who had AV as a coach his entire career. It's difficult to speculate, but I'd imagine that the transition hasn't been easy for him, especially considering he's not known to be blessed with the hockey-sense to adapt quickly, unlike a Tanev, for example. That transition phase should have been over by now, but Edler's play seems to be regressing further and further as the season wears on, to the point that some people seem convinced he isn't even good enough to be a third pairing guy (spoiler alert: he is, but any third pairing D would be exposed playing 25 min).

So yeah, if we're going to want to shake up the core, he's high on my list of people to trade. The trouble is that his less-than-sum-of-parts quality makes it very difficult to nail down a proper value for him. My great hope is that there's still a GM who shares the opinion I had of him several years ago, and not the opinion I have of him today. Edler's a guy who might have huge value on the trade market, but might have very little value. I have no clue what we can get for him, and usually I'm narcissistic enough to believe I know everything. If the value being offered is on the low end of the scale, I'd probably be inclined to hold onto him and hope he improves at least back to the same ballpark he was in during his best years, which would dramatically improve his value and make him back into a very useful piece of our defense. I don't think that's so unreasonable of an expectation.

Llyod, I really enjoy reading your post. With Tanev probably looking for a big raise after this season, I agree that Edler should be the one traded this summer if only a right deal to is in place. It is sad that the relationship between MG and Nonis is as bad as it could be. A Franson + a pick for Edler might be something that will work for both teams. Nonis loves Edler and the Canucks could certainly use a kid like Franson.

[Tciso]

Topper

Maybe this is what Torts needs to learn, well any good coach really, how to get the best from your players.

true dat, HW. true dat.

We need to adjust our style to our players. Ballard's style and strengths and AV is a perfect example. But, I am glad to see Jensen getting top line time. he needs it. Next year could be a real test, with Jensen and Shinkaruk both needing top line time and linemates to excel. Torts (or his replacement...) will have a real handful next year.

[Meds]

I'm going to leave alone the assertion that the twins are not top-six forwards while playing together. That's so obviously ridiculous that it shouldn't need to be answered... although many elegant posters have answered it effectively in the past.

It's not ridiculous at all if you are looking at it from the perspective of consistent production. Every team this year has been able to shut them down in some way. We've seen VERY FEW goals from their line at even strength that haven't been the benefit a bounce around the net. They have killed more rushes than they've started and de-railed the PK countless times. In no way am I saying they lack the skill to be top forwards, they seem to lack the application right now. And, I very much like your point about our having 2 polar opposite lines in terms of style back in 2010-11, perhaps the lack thereof since then has contributed to teams only needing that one-dimensional defensive plan to match up against us. I had definitely not considered that before.

Edler's a totally different puzzle. Speaking of things I've been wrong about, I was once known to say "Once Edler puts it all together, I bet he'll at least be nominated for a Norris by the end of his career." Yup, that was very wrong. It sounds like a really dumb thing to say, but was it so dumb at the time? I dunno. He has literally every physical skill you want to see in a defenseman. We've seen flashes of him playing an elite physical game, stepping up to absolutely crush forwards... once in a blue moon. We've seen him score at a near 50 point pace over three consecutive seasons (09/10 - 11/12), which is truly exceptional production from the back end. We've seen his blistering, 100mph+ slapshot. We've seen how his footspeed is certainly above-average for a man his size. What's not to like about his physical skills? Absolutely nothing. He should be a Norris candidate. Yet he isn't, and at this point in his career, it's safe to say he never will be.

Despite all his mental gaffs, and not being equal to the sum of his parts (in a bad way), Edler has -- until this year -- been at least a solid second pairing defenseman, and top unit powerplay scorer. His salary reflects that, and doesn't go overboard the way Brian Campbell's does. What about this year? He's one of those guys I mentioned way back in the OP, who had AV as a coach his entire career. It's difficult to speculate, but I'd imagine that the transition hasn't been easy for him, especially considering he's not known to be blessed with the hockey-sense to adapt quickly, unlike a Tanev, for example. That transition phase should have been over by now, but Edler's play seems to be regressing further and further as the season wears on, to the point that some people seem convinced he isn't even good enough to be a third pairing guy (spoiler alert: he is, but any third pairing D would be exposed playing 25 min).

So yeah, if we're going to want to shake up the core, he's high on my list of people to trade. The trouble is that his less-than-sum-of-parts quality makes it very difficult to nail down a proper value for him. My great hope is that there's still a GM who shares the opinion I had of him several years ago, and not the opinion I have of him today. Edler's a guy who might have huge value on the trade market, but might have very little value. I have no clue what we can get for him, and usually I'm narcissistic enough to believe I know everything. If the value being offered is on the low end of the scale, I'd probably be inclined to hold onto him and hope he improves at least back to the same ballpark he was in during his best years, which would dramatically improve his value and make him back into a very useful piece of our defense. I don't think that's so unreasonable of an expectation.

I'm in full agreement with your assessment on Edler. However, I was never sold on him from the beginning. It was the comparison's with Ohlund that gave me pause. Mutt was a solid defenseman, no question, smart reads offensively, decent shot, physical down low, but he also tended to make the mental errors, particularly at crucial moments late in a game. I blame management and coaching more than Mutt, and I think some of the same applies to Edler. You are spot on when you say that Edler is a very good second pairing defenseman. He's potentially even a very good top pairing man if he is partnered up with a legitimate #1 stud. The same was true of Ohlund. Both of them were/are the victims of overly high expectations being placed on them by fans and management.

As for Edler's value, it seems that there are always GM's in the league who see former value and covet a player based on what he was and hope he could be again. Edler has value to a lot of teams, while he may not have the same value that he commanded from 2010-2012, I think he still brings a very good return, and while I admit that my opinion is somewhat coloured by wishful thinking, I think that a package centering around Edler could land us a top 3 overall pick.....

I would also add at this point that despite my minor disagreements with you on a few things, IMO the quality of this board is greatly improved by your contributions.

[Meds]

Plain and simple, they are prospects. Only the elite few are classified beyond that.

At draft age there is still plenty of room to grow and deviate from their roles on their junior teams.

I should've addressed this yesterday, but I must have been blinded by the glare from nuckster's post immediately below.

This statement you've made is clearly correct -- correct enough to be self-evident, IMO.

However, I can't agree with the implied conclusion. Just because a prospect's apparent skillset won't necessarily match his final skillset as a developed player, that does not lessen the importance of putting young players in a position to succeed using the skills they currently have. If a prospect grows into a dramatically different player in the NHL, then wonderful, but you can't force it.

Burrows is a great example of how to do it right. He came up as a checker, and was used as a checker until he started to gain confidence in the offensive zone, after which he was given opportunities to expand his repertoire.

On the other hand, you don't take an 18-year-old scoring prospect, thrust him into the NHL at an early age, stick him in an unfamiliar role, which is completely different from every role he's played on every team he's ever been on, take away his safety-net by giving him enough games that he can't be sent down, and expect him to succeed.

If that same 18-year-old reaches his early 20s -- an age when many of his peers are making their way into the NHL -- and he doesn't appear to have reached a high enough offensive ceiling to become an NHL scorer, then yeah, you sit down with him and encourage him to make changes in his game so that he can be effective in a lesser role. Until then, you absolutely encourage every player to develop their play in the defensive zone, which is a must for any role on an NHL team... but you don't have to put them in a defense-first situation in order to accomplish that.

You certainly don't have him play six minutes per night on a fourth line.

This might not fly around here Lloyd.....I mean, it's so logical and makes way too much sense for the old-school way of doing things to really get a handle on it. I mean, every individual on this planet should be treated with the cookie cutter approach.....shouldn't they?

Seriously though, it's great to actually read something that applies "modern" thinking and common sense. Between you and Spock the last couple of weeks around here have felt like someone left a window open and fresh air is finally filtering in.

[Chef Boi RD]

I also love it when people who show no understanding of mental illness misuse references to very serious conditions in a hyperbolic attempt to sound smart. Totally helps social awareness, and doesn't piss off anyone who actually suffers from mental illness.

.

Lol...that's rich, Xanthus.

[Lloyd Braun]

Lol...that's rich, Xanthus.

Would it have been easier to understand if I just said it makes you sound dumb? Because it does that too.

[Chef Boi RD]

Somebody throw me a life preserver here, Chef Boi RD dumbass is swimming with an intellectual shark - Xanthus

[Lloyd Braun]

Seriously though, it's great to actually read something that applies "modern" thinking and common sense. Between you and Spock the last couple of weeks around here have felt like someone left a window open and fresh air is finally filtering in.

I've been blown away by this and all the other similar comments in the thread. Truly, I'm shocked that so many people whose opinions I've read and respected very much for years would have so many nice things to say about my bullshit. It's hard to believe that I came into this thread thinking "Man, has this place ever gone down hill amid all the panic. People will hate this rant, but I'm gonna post it anyway." That sentiment has changed dramatically.

It's not ridiculous at all if you are looking at it from the perspective of consistent production.

Since your reply was so damn reasonable, I feel bad for completely dismissing the point originally. I guess I'll do the thing that I said I shouldn't have to do. Here we go:

The big trouble, IMO, is that people have completely outrageous expectations of what it means to be a second line forward. I'm in total agreement that the twins' productive decline this year has been very concerning, and the argument that they haven't played like first liners is an argument worth having (something that hasn't been the case in the past), but to say they haven't played like second liners, or worse still, can't play like second liners any more while together... well, I don't think that's debatable.

Thing is, the Sedins' historical consistency has not merely been above and beyond the norm for scoring forwards. It's been above and beyond the norm for all-star forwards. Despite any and all talk of them being shut down, they are damn consistent players who have been consistently hard to stop for a very long time. So, when we see them in the midst of their first serious and prolonged slump in a decade, we can't help but apply their old standards while analyzing their current play. This isn't a bad thing when trying to figure out what's going on this year. It's been a steep decline and that matters. However, when making general statements about their worth vs what's typical of the league, it can be a big problem.

So let's look at second line forwards, shall we?

The first thing I did was to remove players who have played fewer than 20 games. Sorry Raffi Torres, but your five points in five games do not make you a PPG winger.

Any given night, there are 90 guys playing on top lines in the league, and 90 more playing on second lines. This is a simplification (and I'll get to the implications later), but one way to look at it is to assume places #91-180 roughly correspond to second liners.

So, after doing that, the 91st leading point producer on a per-game basis, among forwards, is... well, it's actually a tie for the 90th/91st spots between Brandon Dubinsky and Mikael Granlund, each with exactly 2/3s of a point per game (0.67ppg), or, when rounded off, 55 points per a full 82 game season.

The 180th leading point producer is Thomas Tatar, who has 28 in 60 games, or 0.47 per game. Over a full season, that would be good for 38 points in 82 games.

The Sedin twins currently sit at 46 in 64 for Hank (0.72ppg, good for 59 over 82 games, or 67th spot on the list), and 40 in 63 for Daniel (0.63ppg, or 52 points over a full 82, or 101st place on the list).

So, using this extremely simple method, we can easily see that Dank looks like an above-average second liner, and Hank has actually maintained a first line pace.

But that's not all. In order to take this from "lies, damn lies, and statistics" territory, and instead move it into the catagory of a good argument, we have to look at flaws in the methodology, and give a little bit of context to top it off.

First, I present three obvious flaws in the methodology, which might skew the results slightly:
There's the arguable point that a goal is worth far more than an assist. There's the argument that some teams have more than two lines of scorers, boxing out some "true" second liners from offensive situations, high minutes, and powerplay time. There are also a small handful of players who have been hurt long enough to not be included in this analysis, despite having the talent to be on there. (For the record, I only eliminated 9 forwards due to games-played, and many of those were like Torres: not guys I'd expect to see in anybody's top six.)

All these things slightly skew the results towards making the twins look a little bit better than they are, but there are context factors that are just as compelling which seem to skew the stats in the opposite direction.

The trouble with this season is that it bares all the hallmarks of a statistical anomaly for the twins. It's been obvious to anybody paying attention that they have both played through some pretty bad injuries this year. The same is true of their favourite linemate, Burr. I don't think it's a stretch to say with a fair degree of certainty that injuries have held their PPG numbers down more this year than could be reasonably expected from a hypothetical "average" year for this point in their careers. And this slump has been so completely unlike anything we've ever seen from them before that any suggestion this is a new normal should be looked at with a great deal of skepticism, especially considering the inherent problems with a small sample-size.

This seems especially obvious when we look at their fast start (where they were not only reaching first line numbers, but very good first line numbers) and startlingly abrupt decline. There are other explanations for a decline, of course, such as the high minutes of the early season wearing them out, or Kesler being moved onto their line early in the year, and then off again around the time they started slumping, or the theory I previously floated about how buying into Torts' system caused them to focus more on their own end at the expense of offense. None of these things comes anywhere near explaining how they've suddenly crashed to the earth, but if we combine them all and add injuries to the mix, suddenly it seems to paint a reasonable picture.

So, we now have a picture of a couple players who, numbers say, are either low-end first liners, or high-end second liners, with a few niggling methodology problems which could conceivably bump them down into 'regular' second liners territory. On top of that, we have lots of contextual evidence suggesting this pace is a significant anomaly, making it unreasonable to lower our future expectations of them as far as the numbers suggest we should.

Because, the thing is, everything my eyeballs tell me about their play suggests that, Torts' system aside, they do not physically look like the "usual" Sedins. It's not a "usual" Burrows that they've played with either. And having rotating wingers the quality of Top Sixtito certainly doesn't help (thanks, disgusting lack of depth). But despite all that, their numbers still make them look like solid second liners. My personal skew to all this, the one that I get from believing I have a reasonable understanding of the game of hockey, says that they're still first liners having a bad year.

I can accept that there's an argument to be made for them being second liners. I may not agree with it... but sure. The current stats seem to suggest it. They are getting older, so some reduction in expectations is warranted, and a more mild decline wouldn't have been surprising. You could say that this decline could have simply happened faster than anyone had predicted, and sure, that's a somewhat reasonable point of view. If your eyes are telling you something completely different from what mine are telling me, who am I to assume mine are superior?

However, in the face of numbers saying they belong on a second line at worst, and anecdotal evidence suggesting they belong higher than that, I can't think of any solidly rational argument that says they're not, at the very least, second liners.


And now, to finish things off, I'm left wondering how wise it really was for me to come back and answer this fully. Damn, did that ever take some time to do. Hope it came out okay, 'cause I ain't spending too much time on the old editing front.

[Lloyd Braun]

Somebody throw me a life preserver here, Chef Boi RD dumbass is swimming with an intellectual shark - Xanthus

Here you go:


I'm always happy to help.

[Topper]

We'll have to disagree on prospects. I have seen enough prospects develop beyond projections and other underwhelm expectations.

You can't tell me the current crop of young guns in Edmonton would not have benefited from learning the defensive side of the game by breaking in slowly with 3/4 line duty.

I also note that like many of the folks here that you admonish, you cherry picked the "6 minute a night" and ignored the "working their way to 10-12 minutes an night" from my post. You should know, I am not built of straw.

Do you really want me to get into your statistical analysis of the Sedin season? For now I will leave it in your words.

extremely simple method

There are far more flaws to your work than you noted and the huge holes in your assumptions is only the beginning.

I do think there is something to your premise, I just don't think your statistical argument stands up to any tests to support it.

A glaring issue is many teams, Canucks included, are not two line teams. A more rigorous method wold look at teams that have only a 1st line and then a couple of 2/3 lines (often patchwork as we see in Vancouver).

You may construct a second argument by looking at the Sedin's point production through their careers, noting their status and whether they have protection (another line, 1st or 2nd, that challenges opponents top D pairings and shut down forwards). Ultimately, or ideally, this could be done on a game by game basis and then separated into seasons.

Given their +/-1000 game histories, you may even be able to project a narrow range for expected point totals.

I realise it is a daunting task that would consume several severe nic fits and I do not expect you to do it, however I bristle when overly simplistic analysis are used to support an idea.

The numbers will tell the story, do not construct the story first and then find numbers to make the fit.

[Lloyd Braun]

Do you really want me to get into your statistical analysis of the Sedin season? For now I will leave it in your words.

extremely simple method

There are far more flaws to your work than you noted and the huge holes in your assumptions is only the beginning.

I do think there is something to your premise, I just don't think your statistical argument stands up to any tests to support it.

Yeah, I think you're right. It wasn't one of my better posts, and there were many more holes than the ones I mentioned. The premise was the best part and I do stand by the thrust of the argument I was trying to make, but psudo-statistical methodology did not help me. The second best part was the eye test stuff at the end, which at least had the benefit of not pretending to be objective.

I probably should've stuck to my original plan not to address it at all.

With all the "why can't you be more like Lloyd Braun" going on in this thread, no one has really asked you any of the hard questions...

Fantastic post overall, Mondi, but you get an extra special gold star for the way it began.

I like your lineups too, for the most part.

I meant what I said earlier about how Horvat is probably the most NHL-ready of the kids, and I really do hope he makes the team. But, I think you have to be extremely careful to avoid bringing up a prospect with no AHL eligibility if you can't be almost completely sure he's ready. I stand by the idea that Horvat needs to have a fantastic camp and first nine games if he's going to stick. I don't think he's enough of a can't-miss prospect to be an automatic at this point. That said, I'm far more comfortable with him in his draft+2 year than in draft+1, as I also mentioned earlier.

Also, in an ideal world, I don't want to see either Santorelli or (especially) Mattias penciled in on the second line to start the year. I see Mattias as better off in the bottom six, and I like Santorelli as a utility player who can fill in any forward role when needed, in case of injuries or a desire to mix up the lines. Obviously, the world is far from ideal, so it's not likely that we'll be able to pick up two top-six forwards with the 6-7 million or so we have to play with. If we do buy out Booth, the odds of it happening improves.

1. Do you think the Keith Ballard trade was reasonable?

I don't think the value proposition was ever fully there, but at the time I grudgingly liked it because of the specific needs of the team.

Two important aspects that have to be understood to appreciate where the trade was coming from are that Grabner was not likely to make the team out of camp and was waiver eligible (as Florida learned), and that Gillis didn't know Hammer was going to sign. If either of these two points hadn't been the case (or if I'm misreading the situation regarding them), the trade's a bad deal, full stop.

I also was a vocal supporter of Ballard the player for his first two seasons, which was an obvious mistake. I was a fan of his wheels, and put too much emphasis on the hip injury while trying to figure the reason for his ineffectiveness during the first season. I'm willing to eat crow on that one. The trade was obviously a mistake in hindsight. Too many of the "what if" possibilities were against us. What if Grabner turned into a goal scorer? What if the pick (Howden) turned out to be a star? What if Ballard only looked like a big fish because of the small ponds of Florida and Phoenix? And if that's so, what about his long term contract?

Too many question marks to make it an good plan A, and if we're talking about shitty plan Bs to fill that top-4 D we needed so badly, we probably could have found one that wasn't much worse after establishing the UFA market's kindness.

Bad trade.

2. Do you think the Derek Roy trade was reasonable?

Absolutely, yes, it was reasonable. Obviously it didn't work out.

Deadline deals are tough to judge and I feel that buying rentals is generally a bad idea, with only Lappy and Higgins standing out as good value in recent years. That said, all too often these deals come to be judged not by the actual merits of the trade but by the buying team's overall performance, which isn't ideal.

Roy initially seemed to suit our needs very well. We desperately needed a center between the Kesler injury and Gillis' decision regarding Malhotra. We also desperately needed to upgrade our scoring so we could take pressure off the twins.

At the time of the trade, I had figured that once Kesler came back, he'd likely move to the wing alongside Roy and would fit well stylistically, balancing the offense and taking pressure off the twins, but that never happened. Instead, Roy became the defacto Malhotra replacement, which was not a role he was effective in. A solid playmaker means little without a shooter to play with, and from that point on, Roy did not fit on the team at all.

The price tag wasn't outrageous, nor was it a steal. K-Con seemed like a long-shot to me by that point. Offense-first defensemen have to be extremely skilled in order to stick in the league, and he didn't seem to have that high level of skill needed to make up for being a likely defensive liability. The second round pick was painful, but, Roy seemed to have good value. It certainly looked night-and-day better than the last time the Canucks had traded 2nds for rentals. That year we got Carney and Noronen as return for a second each.

Roy had scored 81 points in the past, and was within a dozen points of the ppg mark for five consecutive seasons. He was only 29, which didn't seem old enough to explain the decline, which, at the time, he was only a year and a half into. He also had this promising quote in his first interview: "I'm healthy now. At the start of the year I had couple of little minor injuries and that set me back a bit but I've been skating really well." There was reason to believe that he'd be far better for us than how he ended up.

I was in favour of the deal at the time, and it's hard to argue with the size of the hole we had in our lineup. We seemed to be a team that could contend with a bit more offensive balance, and so yeah... reasonable, but didn't work out.

3. Do you think the way Gillis handled the Luongo/Schneider situation was reasonable?

Nope. He was handcuffed in a bunch of different respects, but his communication throughout was awful. I don't think there's any reason for the team to have essentially crowned Schneider the team's new starter when Schneids, as good as he looked, had never had a year with even 30 NHL starts. Gillis showed a lot of cockyness by painting himself into a corner where trading Lu was so telegraphed that the plan B became a PR nightmare. By being the architect of his own desperation, he also gave up a ton of leverage, which surely would have helped in the Lu negotiations.

That said, I don't particularly object to either resulting goaltender trade, considering the lack of leverage and necessity of making the deals. I do view the whole situation as something that could have been avoided with better communication.

4. Do you think giving Luongo that contract after that first Hawks series was a good move?

Yes. Although obviously, again, it didn't work out in hindsight. I don't think we could've kept Lu on a short term deal without giving up 7+ mil per year. In turn, we'd have had to drop some other salary to afford that. Therefore, I think there's a pretty good chance that the dropped salary would have impacted our depth enough that the cup run might very well never have happened. That was a seriously deep squad, and Lu's cap hit going down by almost $1.5mil instead of going up played a big part in allowing us to build that depth. There's a reason why the league thought we'd gotten away with one when the contract was signed.

The two factors that ended up making the contract look bad were the new CBA and Schneider blowing away everyone's expectations. It's easy to forget that when the contract was signed, Schneids had only played 8 NHL games, with 5 starts, a 3.38 GAA and a .877 SV%. There was reason to think he would be an NHL-level tender based on his success at the AHL level, but no reason to think he'd be elite, which Lu certainly was. Lots of goalies in the past have looked great in the AHL and never found their form in the big league.

5. Do you think making Luongo the captain was a good movie?

Nope. It was silly to think that a goaltender would be able to fulfill all the captain duties on and off the ice, and it provided a distraction with no tangible benefit. Goalies have been part of leadership groups forever without requiring Cs on their jerseys. If it was really so important to make Lu feel all warm, fuzzy and special, give him an A. Even that would have been silly though...

6. Do you think not buying out Booth last summer was a good move (or wait was he hurt?)...how about are you okay with David Booth, period?

I think you're right that he was hurt? Not 100% sure though...

Anyhoo, guess I'll just respond this with a "what to do with Booth now" answer.

I'm generally a big fan of advanced statistics, but they're only useful when it's remembered that they're only one tool in a large toolbox. Booth's advanced stats paint an interesting picture. He seems, on the surface, to be a phenomenal possession player, who suffers from bad luck. However, bad luck looks a lot less like luck and a lot more like a problem the larger the sample size becomes, and at this point in his career, it's pretty obvious that luck is not the explanation.

The eye test backs this up too. We see that when Booth is on the ice, the team seems to be able to win more pucks thanks to his mix of speed, strength, and tenacity, and get more shots off, but many of the shots are extremely low percentage. In the offensive zone, therefore, Booth is likely an anchor when he's on a line with more skilled players. On a line that's more concerned with keeping possession and shutting down the other team, I think he fits very well.

The player I've described is a reasonably valuable piece, but isn't worth anywhere near the same ballpark as $4.25m. Where the keep vs buyout equation gets interesting is when we see that he has only one year left on the deal. The buyout is probably the right option, but not necessarily so.

I think that if Gillis doesn't expect to find the right players with fair-value contracts to fill in our roster and reach the cap next season, you consider keeping him. Basically, I don't want us signing a new guy to a potentially harmful long-term deal just because we have extra empty space next year. That raises the possibility that we may have an extra few million available that would be the difference between Booth's salary and a hypothetical replacement. If so, maybe it would make more sense to keep him next year with the idea that we could probably resign him to a deal that better matches his value in 2015/16

Also, this is a little bit silly, but Booth seems like someone I'd really hate if I knew him. He seems utterly naive, and not someone who challenges the cultural norms he was raised with. This seems to stand out among the locker room's personality, and if he isn't a fit in the locker-room, that means he goes. But yeah, this paragraph is totally speculative and totally silly.

7. Do you think Kassian for Hodgson was a good move? If so, do you think Kassian is a smart hockey player?

Good move, yes. Smart player, no. It's pretty obvious that he isn't a guy that stands out for intelligence, but I haven't seen a reason to conclude that he's especially dumb either. Sometimes, it can be difficult to tell.

Bieksa is a great example. Tons of people have called him dumb over the years, but as he's done more interviews and we've learned more about him, it's clear that he's very smart. He just takes chances on the ice and needed some years in the league before he was able to get a handle on the best times to take those chances.

Kassian seems to be making progress in terms of how he thinks the game, so I'm willing to give him more time before labeling him dumb.

But yeah... it really seemed that Hodgson's head was too big for his skill-set, and he had to go. Kass was a solid pickup, and I think we'll see him evolve into a very good player over the next threeish years. He seems to be following a development arc that isn't unusual for a power forward, and we've seen lots of teams give up on power forwards around Kassian's age just to see them find a groove in their mid-20s.

8. Do you like the return for Luongo?

See my post on the matter here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10249&start=75#p195717

9. Do you like hiring of Torts?

Yes, I do. That's a question I answered earlier in the topic. I question his handling of the twins' line (though I'm not confident about that questioning), and I felt the Calgary incident was a near-fireable offense, but I've liked everything else I've seen. Overall, I'd keep him around and I like the hiring.

10. Are you okay with letting guys like Erhoff, Salo, Samuelsson, and Torres walk over the years (this is a bit of softball)?

I like how your softball question is actually four questions with four distinct answers. I'll try to be brief with each.

Samuelsson: fine with it.

Torres: If there's truth to the rumours that he didn't get along with his teammates and a number of them wanted him off the team, then I'm fine with it. Otherwise, I'm not fine.

Salo: Tricky one. I generally applaud efforts to make the team younger without taking steps backwards in play, and I feel bringing in Garrison while losing Salo was an effort towards that end. However, Salo is a terrifically steady and intelligent player, and by all accounts a terrific leader. Considering his first post-Vancouver contract was only for 1 year, 2 mil, if we'd had the option to keep him at that price, there's no reason we shouldn't have done it.

Ehrhoff: Again, not so simple. I think it's clear he was a very important player to our team, and a serious effort should have been made to resign him. However, the rumours at the time were that he wanted a pretty exorbitant salary. I feel like he might be one of those players that didn't really want to stay here and purposely priced himself out of Gillis' comfort zone... but that's more silly speculation. If the price were reasonable, then obviously he should have been resigned.

It always sucks when a team loses good players for nothing, but realistically, that's just hockey. It happens to every team for a variety of reasons, not all of which are in the GM's control.

Just FYI, I'm sure you'll have a way of defending most, if not all of the moves GMMG has made.

Hope I haven't disappointed you.

But, to call people who are calling a spade a spade a bunch of idiots, or whatever it was, whilst proclaiming yourself a reasoned and rational poster, dismisses as out of hand a lot of what I believe are reasonable criticisms of guy who done little to improve a team that was dynamic just three short seasons ago.

Spades being spades has nothing to do with what made me call people out for making knee-jerk statements without thinking things through. But, of course, there is some obvious ego in my posts. I did mention that the OP, in particular, was a lot more aggressive then I tend to be. That said, I personally prefer reading posters who use a sense of ego as a rhetorical device in their posts, even if it's just to get a laugh. I like it in other forms of media as well, as long as it's not taken too seriously.

*shrug* Different strokes for different folks.

[Island Nucklehead]

1. Do you think the Keith Ballard trade was reasonable?

Yes. Sure blew up in our faces, though.

2. Do you think the Derek Roy trade was reasonable?

Yes. Sure blew up in our faces, though.

3. Do you think the way Gillis handled the Luongo/Schneider situation was reasonable?

No. Pick a goalie and make a move, don't announce it to the world and sit on it for half a decade.

4. Do you think giving Luongo that contract after that first Hawks series was a good move?

Yes. Was, and still is, a premier goalie in the NHL. Not our fault the CBA retroactively punished creative thinking.

5. Do you think making Luongo the captain was a good movie?

No. Dumb move.

6. Do you think not buying out Booth last summer was a good move (or wait was he hurt?)...how about are you okay with David Booth, period?

Injured, couldn't buy him out. Got him for nothing, can't imagine him playing worse than he has. Hard to fault Gillis for trying.

7. Do you think Kassian for Hodgson was a good move? If so, do you think Kassian is a smart hockey player?

Unsure. Leaning towards no. Might have had to trade Hodgson, could've gotten someone other than Kassian. Hodgson was a prime prospect, Kassian might be a valuable player, but everyone knows they take time and can go sour. I think Gillis could've done better, although Kassian is the type of player most teams need more of (physical + Skilled)

8. Do you like the return for Luongo?

Thank you CBA.

9. Do you like hiring of Torts?

Ambivalent. Country club had to end.

10. Are you okay with letting guys like Erhoff, Salo, Samuelsson, and Torres walk over the years (this is a bit of softball)?

Ehrhoff: contract was ridiculous. Salo: 208 years old. Samuelsson: Bandaid. Torres: Nope, should've kept him.

[Chef Boi RD]

Anyhow, even though ya threw me under the bus, LB...nice posting. You still give Gillis too much of a break though

[Island Nucklehead]

All that said I'm not sold on Gillis being the best man for the job. But, I'm not in the fire him merely for missing the playoffs camp either.

I guess ownership has to decide if they think Gillis is the guy to get them another 5-10 wins next season. If Gillis can convince them that injuries and down seasons for guys like Hank, Dank, Burr etc., coupled with dead cap space in Booth, and poor morale on the goalie front, dropped this teams' production to current levels. The other option is that we really are a bottom-third hockey team.

If ownership decides we are really that bad, they might as well do away with Gillis. Rebuilding properly could take 3-5 years, and ideally you get one person/team with a vision you like and let them try to do their thing. Gillis might still sell them on his "bigger, faster, younger" approach, but the results to this point haven't been good. Maybe they understand that he needs another year or two, or the plan all along was to wait until the cap goes back up. Who knows...

What I find the most troubling is the rumblings of ownership involvement in hockey operations. If that's true, they need to shitcan Gillis and find someone whose views align more closely with theirs. Nothing will scare away fans, free agents, sponsors etc. than your franchise turning into a New York Islanders shitshow. Get a GM you like, and let them do their job. If you don't like your GM, fire them and bring in someone else.

At this point, I could care less, so long as any moves are done with a clear vision towards getting the Canucks back to elite status.