IF you could have Ilya Kovalchuk for 1.5 years....would you?

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8353
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: IF you could have Ilya Kovalchuk for 1.5 years....would you?

Post by Island Nucklehead » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:56 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote: Based on how we did earlier in the season with Luongo, I argued that this team, with full health, was right up there with Detroit and San Jose....given the fact that we were 8 games over .500 before the Loo injury (along with the five shutouts, and along with the fact that the Canucks were beating teams in a wide variety of different ways).
I think we sat somewhere in between. No way we're near a San Jose, and probably not a Detroit when healthy. Those are truly complete teams, and while our tending is better (certainly than Detroit), our forwards most definitely are not, and our defense lacks the scoring. I think we all knew we couldn't keep up scoring at the rate we started the season. Guys like Burrows are not going to pot 30 like their start suggested. Overachievers: describes this teams' start perfectly. I think this team allowed itself to believe it was better than it was, get away from its core philosophies, and now has lost its identity of being a responsible, defensive team.

IT'S BEEN ONE FUCKING GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you kidding me?!?!?!?!?!!? Seriously. Give Luongo ATLEAST 5-6 more games. It's completely idiotic to assume that Luongo would've been in PEAK form in his first game back. Give him 6 games....maybe more...to get back to his earlier season form. Sheesh!
Yeah, yeah, one game I know. Thing is, different goalie, same result. Obviously I can't blame the goalie when the team scores one goal (and shouldn't have scored it). I'm talking about the effort level from the rest of the team. Your best player, franchise goalie comes back, you're on the verge of a 5-game home losing streak, and you can't get up for the game.
Again - just a completely moronic comment to make...no offense. Sundin went without 9 months of playing hockey.
Oh none taken, I know what I'm talking about... If he's not ready to play, don't fucking play. He was supposedly skating for a month before he signed, practiced with the team and towed the line "I'm not going to play until I'm ready." Well Mats, you weren't ready. He's getting better, yes. But there is no reason Sundin should be a -4 after just 5 games. He's got the second worst plus minus on the team, after 5 games. I'm not gonna fault him for not putting the points up, but the least he could do is not get scored on 5 on 5.

Farhan Lalji

Re: IF you could have Ilya Kovalchuk for 1.5 years....would you?

Post by Farhan Lalji » Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:27 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:
I think we sat somewhere in between. No way we're near a San Jose, and probably not a Detroit when healthy. Those are truly complete teams, and while our tending is better (certainly than Detroit), our forwards most definitely are not, and our defense lacks the scoring. I think we all knew we couldn't keep up scoring at the rate we started the season. Guys like Burrows are not going to pot 30 like their start suggested. Overachievers: describes this teams' start perfectly. I think this team allowed itself to believe it was better than it was, get away from its core philosophies, and now has lost its identity of being a responsible, defensive team.
Few things:

-You probably are right about the Detroit/San Jose comparison, but I still think it's inconclusive to make a comment like that. For all we know - perhaps the Canucks truly HAD taken "the next level" (and hence, perhaps the statement of "we all knew we couldn't keep up scoring at the rate we started the season" may not be accurate).

-You make some other excellent points (especially your last statement), but I'd still like to see how this team does at the start of February...when everyone is healthy and non-rusty (assuming no other key injuries). I see what you're saying, but I also wonder how this team would be doing right now if Luongo had NOT been injured.

Yeah, yeah, one game I know. Thing is, different goalie, same result. Obviously I can't blame the goalie when the team scores one goal (and shouldn't have scored it). I'm talking about the effort level from the rest of the team. Your best player, franchise goalie comes back, you're on the verge of a 5-game home losing streak, and you can't get up for the game.
I completely agree with your assessments here, but sometimes - it IS far easier said than done to "get the monkey off your back" when the entire team is going through confidence issues. Almost all teams in this league go through peaks and slumps.
Oh none taken, I know what I'm talking about... If he's not ready to play, don't fucking play. He was supposedly skating for a month before he signed, practiced with the team and towed the line "I'm not going to play until I'm ready." Well Mats, you weren't ready. He's getting better, yes. But there is no reason Sundin should be a -4 after just 5 games. He's got the second worst plus minus on the team, after 5 games. I'm not gonna fault him for not putting the points up, but the least he could do is not get scored on 5 on 5.
I'll agree with you on the +/- thing. As far as 'game shape' goes, it's a completely different ballgame to be "skating well in practice" and playing well in an NHL game. I have absolutely no doubt that Sundin prepared hard for his debut. Even with that being said however, it still takes awhile to get back into "NHL game shape." Sundin, a 38 year old, is competing against guys that are in mid-season form right now. He deserves some slack.

My view with Sundin is this: Even if the guy completely stinks for the rest of the season but the Canucks still manage to make the playoffs.....Sundin will be a completely different animal come playoff time (a la Linden 06/07).

User avatar
Sid Dithers
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: Surrey, B.C.

Re: IF you could have Ilya Kovalchuk for 1.5 years....would you?

Post by Sid Dithers » Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:56 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote:
Sid Dithers wrote:
But Farhan's hypothetical really bugs me in a different way. One more piece, one more piece, one more piece. When does it become time to admit that the assembled team just isn't good enough, and barring moving half the roster out of here, they aren't going to come close to being a serious contender this year?
What bugs me about your comments, are:

A) Like dr.dork and a few other posters, you are unfairly judging this team based on what they've done WITHOUT a healthy Luongo AND a non-rusty Sundin (although by this logic, I am also guilty of the same thing......only that I'm on the other side of the spectrum in terms of my optimism). It's not fair to write this Canuck team off without actually seeing what they can do with a reasonably healthy line up that INCLUDES their top players at 100% health and/or non-rustiness. By the same token, I also admittedly need to stop "counting the chickens before they've hatched." My biggest fault is that I'm a homer...I can admit that.

B) You fail to acknowledge the fact that in the playoffs, the top seeds are often NOT around when the 3rd round hits. Who cares if San Jose and Detroit are 'better' than the Canucks on paper or on the ice? (and for the record - I still don't think we can conclusively say that....given that we haven't seen the Canucks with a fully healthy and non-rusty Sundin AND Luongo leading this team)....which leads me to point 'C'

C) Look at the Edmonton Oilers from 05/06. These guys were also very mediocre for most of the year....due to the fact that they didn't have adequate goaltending. At the trade deadline, they went out and got Sergei Samsonov (bust) and Dwayne Roloson (huge piece as it turned out). By your logic, Edmonton were foolish for being buyers at the deadline since they were nowhere near being the best team. As it turned out, Dwayne f'cking Roloson literally almost was their "missing piece." Who's to say that the Canucks can't be similar to Edmonton in this regard? With a healthy/non-rusty Sundin AND Luongo...combined with another missing piece...why CAN'T the Canucks be a major major player?

D) In the past 10 seasons, here are some very NON top-tier teams that made the Stanley Cup finals:

1998: Washington Capitals
1999: Buffalo Sabres
2002: Carolina Hurricanes
2003: Anaheim Ducks
2004: Calgary Flames
2006: Edmonton Oilers

So basically, 35% of the teams that have made the cup finals within the last 10 years, have been NON-top tier teams. Lest we forget...the Vancouver Canucks from 1994. Florida Panthers from 1996 are yet another example.

E) The Canucks have the best goalie...or 2nd best goalie...in the league. This is arguably the BIGGEST reason why the Canucks will be a huge factor if they make the playoffs....assuming that Luongo gets a shred of help...unlike the 06/07 playoffs. Given how the Canucks looked earlier this season with Luongo (i.e. beating teams by shutting them down AND winning with a high scoring offense), combined with the addition of Sundin, I fail to see how ANYONE can write this team off....after *1* game of having Luongo back....a very rusty Luongo....and a very rusty Sundin, Johnson, Salo, and Pyatt.

This team needs to be judged based on how they play in February.

After that? If the Canucks fail to live up to expectations during the month of February, then guys like Madcombepilot, dr.dork, Island Knucklehead, Sid Dithers, Robert, DonCherry4PM, etc., etc. can be dismissive of the Canucks to their hearts content. Heck - I'll even join in on the party. ;)
Injuries are part of the game. If the team can't suck up the adversity, they're not good enough. I'm not necessarily talking about winning, but playing at a consistently acceptable level. But let's leave Luongo and the rusty Sundin out of the equation for a minute. Why is Demitra sucking? Why does Bieksa look horrible and why is he handing the puck away as much as he is? Why has Wellwood been shown the press box? Why can't AV find ONE FRICKEN GUY who can at least play with the Sedins and contribute on some sort of consistent basis? Why is Edler half the player he was last season?

What are the answers to these, Farhan? They're not injured, they're just playing lousy. Are they so brittle confidence-wise that they can't at least hold down their end of the deal? The Canucks aren't losing because Luong has been out. They're losing because the players in the jerseys have been terrible. A healthy Luongo will cover for some of their poor play, but in the end, it's still a team playing poorly. If Luongo needs to be in net for the 18 skaters to all pull their weight, what does that say about this group? And if they can't minimize the damage in January, how the hell are they going to do it in a playoff series against a good team?

About the 05-06 Oilers, you are just proving my point. Yes, teams can get lucky and get on the roll. But to chase down old guys and get them in the Canucks lineup just because 'this might be our year' isn't good enough logic. Hell, maybe this will be Columbus' year. Or maybe it will be Dallas' year. You don't sell out your soul to become one of the flock. You continue to build young assets smartly so that at some point you can be a team that has a chance EVERY YEAR. I want the Canucks to be a contender every year. The only way that is done is by building a young core of players you believe in who can grow together to become the foundation. So what happened to Edmonton in 2006-2007?

GP W L OL P
82 32 43 7 71

Nice. Who the hell wants that?
I'll say it one more time. A great goalie is terrific to have. But the skaters in front of him still need to be a damn good team.
In Luongo's absence, the Canucks have proven to still have way too many holes and far too much inconsistency. Luongo will certainly come back to form at some point, but I think it's very uncertain that Sundin will. He may not get it back at all. We just don't know. It's best to assume nothing about him at this point. And as for your assertion that 'This team needs to be judged based on how they play in February', that's bullshit. This team needs to be judged from everything that has happened since October. That's why they start keeping score in October; because that's what is relevant. The whole season counts. Go ask New Jersey. They've been without Brodeur and are still getting the job done. They're a good team. In similar circumstances, the Canucks have basically flopped.

And I can most certainly (and conclusively) say that both Detroit and San Jose are better than the Canucks. Both are considerably better, IMO. And as for your assertion that 'the top seeds are often NOT around when the 3rd round hits', yes, sometimes that is true. The bottom line is that in the Canucks case, they are going to have to face one of them no later than the second round. So 'Who cares if San Jose and Detroit are 'better' than the Canucks on paper or on the ice?' duh, well, as a Canuck fan, YOU better start caring about it. Because unless the Canucks can suddenly start playing a whole lot better than they are, the whole exercise will be futile, and this season will be deemed to be what I've already called it...a wasted season. We can suspect Luongo will do his job, but what about Edler, and Bieksa, and Demitra, and Wellwood, and Raymond, and Bernier? And can the Sedins do what they haven't done yet, which is produce like a first-line during the playoffs? None of the guys mentioned have a track-record for delivering at crunch time. And as far as this season goes, I don't have much hope they will. I'd love for them to surprise me and do it, but until I see something once, I don't count on it happening. Maybe this year the Canucks will be the middle-of-the-pack team that will rise up and make the big run. But I don't chase that dream. Because when it (most likely) doesn't happen, you're just one year further removed from doing what really needs to be done: rebuilding this team with promising young players.
AraChniD iS stoOpiDz!

dr.dork
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:13 am
Location: Vancouver

Re: IF you could have Ilya Kovalchuk for 1.5 years....would you?

Post by dr.dork » Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Farhan Lalji wrote: A) Like dr.dork and a few other posters, you are unfairly judging this team based on what they've done WITHOUT a healthy Luongo AND a non-rusty Sundin (although by this logic, I am also guilty of the same thing......only that I'm on the other side of the spectrum in terms of my optimism). It's not fair to write this Canuck team off without actually seeing what they can do with a reasonably healthy line up that INCLUDES their top players at 100% health and/or non-rustiness. By the same token, I also admittedly need to stop "counting the chickens before they've hatched." My biggest fault is that I'm a homer...I can admit that.


After that? If the Canucks fail to live up to expectations during the month of February, then guys like Madcombepilot, dr.dork, Island Knucklehead, Sid Dithers, Robert, DonCherry4PM, etc., etc. can be dismissive of the Canucks to their hearts content. Heck - I'll even join in on the party. ;)
Hey wait a minute. If I'm not being accused of having rose coloured glasses on I am being accused of unfairly judging. At some point you need to judge based on actual points. The canucks had ONE hot streak which every team has. We have to keep that in mind. Is this a very good team that due to other factors only exposed themselves as very good for 3 weeks ? Or is it a mediocre team that had one hot streak. I have made no claims either way other than inferring it is too soon to tell.

If I had to guess, then I would say if we get and stay healthy we will make the playoffs and if we get lucky we could make some noise. Unless we are lights out in feb (which I doubt) then this is NOT the year to sell the farm and go for it.

You also need to define what you mean by "live up to expectations". I would say the expectations on this team are probably fairly low. If they go lights out in feb that would be a bit of a surprise.

I think we need to see what happens in feb. At this point I am cautiously optimistic, which probably means I have rose coloured glasses on.

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8353
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: IF you could have Ilya Kovalchuk for 1.5 years....would you?

Post by Island Nucklehead » Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:27 pm

Good points Sid. Only thing I won't agree to is the wasted season bit. There's no doubt that had Luongo not gotten hurt we'd be in a better position. Much like our defensive injuries last season, excuses or not they do impact our standings. You don't replace a Luongo and I think we'd probably have 4-6 more points in the standings if he didn't get hurt.

I think if you're going to be a good team, you have to try to be a good team every year. I don't want my team to piss away the season by not improving in order to get a decent shot at Tavares. In this cap day and age, it dosn't take much to turn it all around, and if we suck for a couple years, get stellar prospects, our window for winning becomes minuscule. Look at the Penguins, they probably had their best shot last year, and with huge contracts to all those young prospects (Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Staal, Witney etc.) they're going to be a very thin team for a few years to come Also, we need to show potential free agents signees, as well as our own players that this team is committed to both winning AND the future, so we can keep guys like Luongo and Hodgson, who will be unrestricted at 26 most likely, in Vancouver.

Since 1997 the Red Wings have had only five first round picks. Five picks in 12 drafts. Problem is many of their second round picks look like first rounders...(Jiri Hudler, Jimmy Howard, Johan Franzen). Nobody in the league drafts as well as they do, but they also aren't afraid to deal for pieces they think will help them this season.

I can see this team getting it together and making a decent drive for the playoffs, and I think they probably should get in with the roster they have. I don't think we should mortgage the future for rentals, but making deals for guys/picks we deem won't be impact players for us isn't something we should shy away from. It just needs to be carefully weighed.

Post Reply