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

[Topper]

But I dont know if I have read you're opinion on whether the gap in the prospect pool is something that should bring Gillis down.

Because I have never said that.

[Lloyd Braun]

I expected them to be fighting for a playoff spot, maybe a couple of games above where they are now, but not much. To me that is moot. There was no way they would be a contender once the playoffs began. Another quick first round exist matter little other than two home dates in the Aqualung piggy bank.

I expected a more consistent season, not the up and down of this year. I was as surprised by the high of Dec as I was of the low of Jan-Feb.

I've always been one of those "get into the playoffs and you have a shot" kind of guys, however, lack of depth is probably the single biggest way to kibosh such an idea, barring a ridiculous run of good health, so that's fair enough. It seems that I had them projected a few points higher than you did but not significantly so, which again is fair enough.

I was surprised by December too, but the underlying numbers were weakinging in some respects during that month. Our top offensive guys were sagging even as the secondary scoring had a brief surge (if memory serves), so it didn't seem particularly sustainable, even at the time. Frankly, both December and Jan/Feb were anomalies where luck factors happened to converge with the team's play, skewing the results towards the extremes.

People put too much stock in the idea that gutsy, clutch teams filled with good ol' Canadian boys tend to win close games, and lazy teams with soft players and prima donnas lose them. A run of wins or losses in close games has more to do with luck than anything else, as it was in December.

Either way, I'm not a person who believes there's no good to be found in competing when the chance to win the big price is microscopic. I think the cumulative effect of iceing competitive squads and learning to win as a team easily outweighs the potential of a slightly higher pick. So I don't agree that the results are moot, especially not when the team seems to be playoff-worthy.

... The boss-man with his playoff ticket $$$ aside (for what I'd hope would be at least three games) ...

I was willing to live with their warts and see them rotate in and out of the pressbox. Start out as 6 minute a night guys and be playing 10 minutes a night at this point in the season.

Here's a place we disagree rather strongly. Especially in the case of an offensively focused guy like Shinkaruk, I don't believe your plan would be likely to help their development, and your argument hinges on development being the top priority. There would have been the chance for everything to fall into place and for them to succeed immediately, accelerating development. However, the odds of a stall were probably higher and there's no take-backsies after the 10th game. It would have been a huge risk, and not a smart one.

Hence they should have been in Utica as injury call ups. I have a hard time believing that a Horvat/Shrinkwrap(healthy)/Gaunce would bring any less than Dalpe does.

Yeah. I think the media narrative of Dalpe/Welsh as replacements for our kids was, as with most media narratives, three-quarters bullshit. Torts and/or Gillis didn't want the 18-year-olds to start the season and it looked like they might have to keep them because of injuries and lack of alternatives. The trade was dictated by the decision to send the kids down, and not the other way around. It would have been nice to keep them for 9 games to see what happens, but chances are the deal wouldn't have been available after the start of the regular season.

Obviously. You have never. Read Hemingway.

[Topper]

I've always been one of those "get into the playoffs and you have a shot" kind of guys

The glass slipper broke for me in June '82.

Here's a place we disagree rather strongly. Especially in the case of an offensively focused guy like Shinkaruk, I don't believe your plan would be likely to help their development, and your argument hinges on development being the top priority. There would have been the chance for everything to fall into place and for them to succeed immediately, accelerating development.

I saw them as 6 minute 4th line guys this season. Work on the defensive side of the game, work their way into 3rd line duty. All with little expectations. I am not suggesting the Oiler model of "here ya go kids, you are now the top line, fly at it and lead us to the promised land like 99 did 30 years ago".

It would take strong leadership, Torts and the team have that, to deflect the media shit show that would magnify every mistake.

[ukcanuck]

But I dont know if I have read you're opinion on whether the gap in the prospect pool is something that should bring Gillis down.

Because I have never said that.

Yeah that's what I'm saying, If you have said what your opinion on the fire Gillis front is, I missed it.

Or probably more accurately, I've missed your critique on the fire Gillis crowd.

[Lloyd Braun]

I saw them as 6 minute 4th line guys this season. Work on the defensive side of the game, work their way into 3rd line duty. All with little expectations. I am not suggesting the Oiler model of "here ya go kids, you are now the top line, fly at it and lead us to the promised land like 99 did 30 years ago".

It would take strong leadership, Torts and the team have that, to deflect the media shit show that would magnify every mistake.

The leadership group on the team is, indeed, criminally underrated, and that's a big boost. But I don't think the rest of your post helps your argument much.

Six minutes per game is not enough for an 18-year-old who you're trying to develop as an offensive player. There are examples of Canuck offensive prospects successfully brought up as checkers, but none of the examples are similar enough to shed positive light on the idea.

The twins might be an obvious one, but during their rookie year, they averaged 13:31 and 13:00 per game, which are solid third line minutes. They received plenty of power-play time as well, scoring a little over a third of their points on the PP. Moving forward from that year, they didn't see significant increases in either ice-time or scoring until their fourth season, which doesn't make them a wonderful example of successful early development. It would be a reach to suggest that their progress was held up by being brought in as 18-year-olds, but an even bigger reach to suggest that it was a great success. At the time, the Canucks were a far weaker team than we have now, and played in a far less insane media atmosphere. They were drafted 2nd and 3rd overall, and knowing what we do about them now, they obviously have always been very mature for their age.

The other example I can think of is Mason Raymond, who was used to great success (IMO) on the fourth line to start his career. His speed was extremely effective against the knuckle-dragging opponents, and he lifted his terrible line to possession-respectability. However, he was 22-years-old by the time of his rookie year. This makes it a completely different situation.

Can you think of any others around the league? I'm sure there are some, but they aren't coming to mind at the moment. There's a reason it doesn't happen very often. Certainly, there seem to be more prominent examples of this strategy falling on its face than there are of the strategy succeeding. Gilbert Brule, for example.

I'm not saying it can't work. Just that it would be a huge risk, and the odds of failure would be unacceptably high, especially for an offense-first guy like Shink.

[Topper]

Kesler and Burrows both spent time on the fourth line working their way to the third. As mentioned, they were also greatly aided by the '04-05 lockout when Kesler was able to return to the Moose.

Hansen and Ruutu where others brought along this way and both saw extended time in the press box.

[Jovocop]

Kesler and Burrows both spent time on the fourth line working their way to the third. As mentioned, they were also greatly aided by the '04-05 lockout when Kesler was able to return to the Moose.

Hansen and Ruutu where others brought along this way and both saw extended time in the press box.

None of them were considered talented offensive players at the time. Most people thought Kesler, at best, is a third line center with not much potential. Burrows was not even drafted and nobody expected him to score 30 goals in the NHL. Hansen was a 7th rounder and Ruutu was just an agitator... Like Jensen, Shinkaruk is better off with logging tons of minutes in the minors than playing 6-7 minutes in the NHL. When these offensive players don't produce, they don't do much on ice. On the other hand, Kassian is the type of players that could start playing in the NHL early and learn the game by playing less than 10 minutes a game.

[Topper]

Are these the same people who had the Sedins as 2nd/3rd line players?

And where do you have Gaunce and Horvat? I know I saw more than 3rd line from Kesler.

......and the negative nancys begin to arrive.........

[Jovocop]

Are these the same people who had the Sedins as 2nd/3rd line players?

And where do you have Gaunce and Horvat? I know I saw more than 3rd line from Kesler.

......and the negative nancys begin to arrive.........

I never have a problem with the Sedins. The Sedins were 2nd and 3rd overall picks and were expected to bring the offensive-challenged Canucks a much needed second line at the time.

Horvat, like the Sedins, was a high draft pick in a deep draft. I expect him to be a second line centre in a few years. Gaunce could have been part of the team at the beginning of the season but he did not really have a great camp. I fully expect him to challenge a spot in the coming season.

To be honest, I did not know much about Kesler at that time. I did not expect him to be the player that he is today.

[Lloyd Braun]

Kesler and Burrows both spent time on the fourth line working their way to the third. As mentioned, they were also greatly aided by the '04-05 lockout when Kesler was able to return to the Moose.

Hansen and Ruutu where others brought along this way and both saw extended time in the press box.

The three guys not named "Kesler" were (in Hansen's case, arguably) seen as defense-first forwards, none of whom were expected to become scoring forwards, and none of whom were teenagers at the time of their call-up. Kesler was seen as a two-way guy, more in the vein of Horvat, who would be slightly more acceptable to me than Shink in a 4th line role... but still not acceptable enough.

Kesler is easily the best comparable of the four, however he hadn't played in the CHL and therefore didn't face the same restrictions that our youngsers do. It was not sink or swim, and he could be sent down to the AHL. He was brought up mid-season, not unlike Jensen this year, and immediately played 12:12 in his first NHL game. He went on to average only 10:42 in 28 NHL games while playing 33 games that year in the AHL. It isn't a bad comparable for Horvat or Gaunce, but the huge difference is that bringing in Kesler to play for the club was a much lower-risk proposition. He could always be sent back down. This is a big difference. The lockout year was Kesler's second pro season, and he improved from 0.33ppg in the AHL to 0.74ppg. It was clear that by his third pro year, he was ready for prime time. Not a bad example, but there are some compelling reasons why playing a 19-year-old Kesler as a mid-season call-up made far more sense than a 18-year-old Horvat or Shinkaruk out of training camp.

Your other three examples are night and day different, and don't apply to the situation at all.

Ruutu was already 24 by the time he played his first North American season, yet despite that, in his first two seasons, he only played a combined 29 NHL games alongside 111 AHL/IHL games. He was drafted in the third round out of an American college, but went back to play three seasons in the Finnish league before even trying to make it in North America. Why would you even list this as a comparable???

The Burrows comparison is similarly absurd. We're all familiar with how he went undrafted and clawed his way up through the ranks. He didn't even make the jump from the ECHL to the AHL until the age of 23, when he scored a whopping 26 points in 72 games... in the minors... while five years older than Shink and Horvat. Like Ruutu, he was never projected to be any kind of scorer, nor was he treated like an offensive prospect. Again, how is this relevant to the discussion???

Hansen is a little less absurd, but still more than a little silly to use as a comparison. He was drafted in the 9th round, and obviously was not considered a top offensive prospect at the time of his draft the way Shink and Horvat are. Unlike Burr and Ruutu though, he had worked his way to a spot where people saw offensive upside before the time of his significant regular season call-up (injuries had forced him play 10 playoff games as a 20-year-old in his first pro year, where he registered one assist). However, he was already 22 at the time, four years older than Shink and Horvat, with two full AHL seasons under his belt (neither of which was the lockout year, btw). Most people were dubious of his ability to translate the modest AHL productivity into NHL productivity, and he was considered most likely to be a checker for life. This is not a completely absurd comparable, as the last two were, but it's still apples and oranges.

Come on Topper. If you're trying to prove your point, these examples aren't helping you. Even where Kesler is concerned, it's a false comparison because he had not played in the CHL and therefore the Canucks were able to move him up and down at any time. My biggest objection with your theory is the risk factor involved in not having the option to send either of these kids down should the NHL prove overwhelming, or should their progress stall at any point beyond game 10.

[2Fingers]

I was going to post a long well documented, well thought response (thought I would do something different this time) but after reading what Topper wrote I will just agree with what he said.

Yes this could make the playoffs and yes they could win the s/c but the chance is minimal and i prefer to take a longer look approach and do what is right to give them a better chance in 2 years than "just making the playoffs and see what happens" stance.

Oh - yea, I still don't see MG as the GM who can do this.

[Topper]

You asked for prospects who worked their way up the lineup learning a defensive role first. I gave them to you.

I fail to see the risk of blowing a prospects confidence asking them to learn defence first in a limited ice time role.

The pressure is off, expectations are tempered, they are not expected to carry the load.

I am far from one of the guys who insists offensive prospects be given sporadic top line duty and 2nd unit PP time. Top offensive players can handle themselves on both sides of centre ice.

Given your thinking, the status quo goes on for another season as the guys in the CHL move to the AHL for another year and cheap throw away FA's fill the bottom once again.

Getting back to the point, Dalpe/Welsh/Gaunce/Horvat/Shrinkwrap, do you see a difference in what they offer and who do you see in the future that you want to invest in.

I see the bottom six as a development level (with a couple of savvy vets for stability). For far too many years that has been missing.

[herb]

I agree with TopTop.

Not giving Horvat and Shinkaruk legitimate shots this year was a mistake. They looked good in camp and weren't given a shot because career AHLers Dalpe and Welsh were traded for. Gillis and Torts kept telling us the "kids" were going to get a chance. I think Gillis micro managed the situation by sending them down to avoid a RFA year being lost.

I think next year we should throw all archetypes out the window about what a 'typical' bottom six player is, and just play the 12 best forwards we have. I suspect Jensen, Horvat, Gaunce and Shinkaruk will be better hockey players in the fall than any of Sestito, Dalpe, Schroeder and maybe even Richardson will be.

[Lloyd Braun]

I asked for offensive prospects who had been brought in at an early point in their development, to play limited minutes, and had enjoyed success within that plan of development. I talked about Raymond briefly, but disqualified him as a comparable because of his age, despite the fact that he fit the mold in other ways. Kesler wasn't a bad example, although it was different in one very important respect, so thank you for that. The other three were miles away from what I had asked for, and had no baring on the discussion.

Status quo for another year??? Hardly! I don't know where you got that from because it's nowhere to be found in any of my posts.

Next year, I expect Jensen to make it out of camp. I don't think there's any chance whatsoever of either Shink or Gaunce playing in the CHL as overagers, so whether they make the team immediately will depend on their camps. If they do, we have the safety net of sending them to Utica later in the year as needed. If they don't make it straight away, we can call them up mid-season as with Jensen, or Kesler.

I also expect Horvat, who I consider the most NHL-ready of the three, to make a serious push in training camp. Maybe he makes it, but if he does it won't be because we felt compelled to add some youth. It'll be because he broke the door down and burst his way in. I'm high enough on him to think that's possible. It'll also be his draft+2 year, which is very different from draft+1.

We will also have a far better cap situation going into next season, so I fully expect us to enhance our depth with a small number of UFA signings that cost us significantly more than the league minimum salary.

Tell me again how my thinking is the status quo of cheap FAs? Because I don't see it.


*edit: This is the second time in this thread I've forgotten to mention Fox. The first time was while running down prospects that we didn't draft. This time, he's important enough to the conversation for me to go back and edit the post. Fox will be 21 next year and is a legit offensive prospect. He will be either a Comet or a Canuck for the entirety of next season as well, and I'd be surprised if he doesn't spend time on the big club. He's in the same boat as Gaunce and Shink.

[Topper]

We will also have a far better cap situation going into next season, so I fully expect us to enhance our depth with a small number of UFA signings that cost us significantly more than the league minimum salary.

You did so yourself.

My worry with Fox is he makes Kassian look like a boy scout. Roxy Roller?