Discussion in 'Vancouver Canucks' started by VancouverJagger, Jun 9, 2018.
We can both agree on that....
This team has a lot of cap space with the Sedins off the books. I'm not even going to speculate on our playoff chances until mid July. This division is so weak, one impact player could be enough to get us 3rd seed in the division. If we stay the course though and don't use that space to bring in an impact player, then obviously we are a lottery team.
Realistically with the right acquisitions and the free cap space from Edler and Erickson we are 3 years away from being a threat.
If Dahlen, Pettersen, Boeser, Horvat, Demko, Juolevi all pan out which I believe they will then we are looking good
If Lind, Gaudette, Gadjovic, become mason Raymond level of contribution then we can shed some salary in Gagner, Bae, Granlund
If our defensive draft this year is able to lock down a 3-4 position beside Tryamkin who returns
If we are able to throw a tonne of money at a defender or two
There is a lot of IFs but this is the direction we are heading AND we will have three full drafts to add for the future ( which won’t contribute to the team in 3 years but shortly afterwards )
Oh and Leipsic is gonna surprise and become Burrows 2.0
So much randomness at play. Washington drafted basically their whole core - meaning you don't need a brilliant president and GM if you got good scouts. We could get lucky over the 2-3 next years and have a very solid group of 5-6 players. Then who knows....
That goes for a lot of teams though. So I would agree with the ones saying with Linden/Benning that is not at all likely to happen. And even if we got that core group you still need some clever tweaking around it. Again not likely to happen.
Can't help ending up laughing at the roster they have built. When will we be competitive? Can only pray that in 22-23 we are not stuck with any more of those idiot contracts. 23-24. Could be our year.
We had a 101 pt team 4 years ago, the year they had 90. Anything from more than two years ago means very little. I don't think we're very far off from the Avs of the two seasons prior to last year, where they averaged 65 points. Our last two seasons have averaged 71.
I'm not saying we're making the playoffs next year, but let's say in terms of impact, Horvat = Landeskog, Boeser = Rantanen and Pettersson can get to 80-90% of MacKinnon. Add a little bit of extra depth, hope for Markstrom to have a similar season to Varlamov, and that somehow we get a defenseman that can replicate Sam Girard (say it's Dobson in two years). Throw in a weaker division than the Central, some decent injury luck (for the Canucks and with other teams losing players) and there are the ingredients for a playoff team, or at the very least a team that keeps it interesting until the last few games.
None of this is meant to compliment the Canucks for the team they've built. I'd just like to push back on the idea now that if this team goes on a fluke playoff push next season that it means anything about the long term future of the team. Horribly run teams with terrible outlooks can and do make the playoffs.
A teams success happens from the top down
We will NEVER make the playoffs with Benning as our GM going forward, he doesn't know HOW to be a GM
Remember, Benning is a historically incompetent GM. People will discuss him and he will be the punchline to jokes years after he is gone, around the time we make out next playoff appearance.
Are the Jets the only team that missed last year and made this year? Why is that the standard? I'm not saying we'll be playing in the WCF in 2 years.
The Avalanche are a better example. Or Philadelphia. Or New Jersey. These are teams that made the playoffs after missing last year, and weren't good enough to advance past round 1. That I what I think we would be in 2020.
Sure, we *could* be any of those teams. But I just wanted to point out that we (fans) have a tendency to look at our small collection of young talent - Boeser, Horvat, Pettersson, Dahlen, Juolevi, the 7th this year, a high pick next year - and imagine this group is so impressive that playoffs are just around the corner. When in actuality, I don't think this group is even close to a playoff contending core (yet).
Look at the 2015-16 Jets. They already had Wheeler, Scheifele, Ehlers, Perrault, Little, and the 2nd OA pick up front plus Trouba, Buff, Myers, and Morrisey on the back end. That's a larger and much more impressive collection of young assets and yet that team still didn't make the playoffs until this season. When I look at that team and compare it to ours, I think it shows we are still 3-4 years behind them. They drafted well but also benefited from some outstanding trades (Buff, Wheeler) to arrive at that mix.
If I'm being optimistic here, then I think we are following the Winnipeg path but we are several years behind where they are today. If everything goes right (which it did for them), then that puts us back in playoffs around 2021 or so.
Just making the playoffs is the merit badge of achievements when over half the league makes it and with some luck could happen any year really.
Now actually winning a playoff round is something worth talking about. I think we’re at least 5 years away from that which means it will have been over 12 years since our last playoff round win. Even the darkest Messier timeline didn’t have a streak of incompetence like that.
well we did win the president's trophy the year after our last playoff win, and then we had a 100 point season years after that.
we didn't break 100 points in our first 22 seasons, and it took us 30 years to win a president's trophy.
so cheer up.
Yeah, just making the playoffs isn't all that notable, really. Any crappy team has a shot of doing it, given some luck, effort, and the right guys hitting their stride at the right time, in any given year. It wouldn't be THAT strange and unthinkable if, even next year, Markstrom has a great year, and Horvat, Boeser, and Pettersson helps this team claw their way to an 8th seed, only to get swept in the first round or something.
Again, Winnipeg isn't the best comparison because they:
a) had Ondrej Pavelec in net posting a .904. The assumption for playoff talk is whoever we have will be putting up around a league average .915, if not better.
b) probably underperformed throughout the roster in 2016...the explosion this year proves that the talent was always there.
c) play in a killer division.
d) don't/didn't have the go-ahead to spend to the cap regardless of performance
e) are now a legitimate Cup contender after their first season back to the playoffs
On that last point; most people saying the Canucks could make the playoffs are talking about them being akin to the 2013 Leafs or Islanders. That's an entirely different type of playoff team than Winnipeg who is much, much closer to being the 2009 Blackhawks than to those two.
The collection of young talent here is nothing spectacular, I won't argue about that. But you don't need "spectacular" to be a playoff team. If Boeser hits 35-40 goals, Pettersson 70 points, Horvat 60 points, one of Gaudette/Dahlen 50+, Baertschi 40, Sutter 35 from third line minutes, Goldobin/Eriksson 30-35 from the third line + PP, Virtanen 25-30, Edler-Tanev average 75+ games, one or both of Stecher/Del Zotto put up 25+ points, and Markstrom posts above a .915... that's very close to being a playoff team. Even two years from now, those totals are all optimistic, but not out of this world.
A team with a +20 goal differential is almost certainly a playoff team. That's a 65 goal swing from last season, which is obviously a lot. But let's take a (crude) look at where could those goals come from, even for this upcoming season:
Starting balance: -46
The Canucks gave up 32.2 SA per game, which was 18th. Let's say they get that down with some tighter defensive play (no Sedins + marginal improvement from Horvat and co.) to about 31.5 SA (the year before we were at 31.8), which would be 13th best in the league. That's about 50 less shots over the full season (crude, rounded math). If Markstrom + backup can put up even a .910 vs. the .902 they put up combined last year (259 goals against on 2640 shots via NHL.com)...that's 17 goals right there. Not a guarantee, but not a crazy stretch by any means.
(Crude) projected goal improvements: Boeser +7, Pettersson = Daniel, Gaudette = Henrik, Baertschi + 5, Horvat + 5, bottom-6 (combined) +5, defensemen (combined) +5.
I probably messed up somewhere with the goaltending numbers (oddly, hockey-reference has different shots against and goals against numbers, from nhl.com, which is what I used), but this group could somewhat realistically be essentially a break-even team by next season. It's certainly not a completely wild scenario. Obviously they could also be a -60 team, and the most likely case if I was betting is probably somewhere in the -20-30's, but let's be optimistic. Take it one step further and assume linear progress; add another 10-15 goals the year after, and it's a marginal playoff team that probably finishes between 8th and 11th. Add 20-25 and it's probably a 6th-9th seed in the West.
The problem with this team even under the optimistic projection still is and until Benning is gone will be; where are the improvements going to come after that? Where would the next, additional 35-50 goals (that would launch the team from mediocre bottom playoff seed to actual top seed contender) possibly come from? Short of Demko becoming a .925 goalie, and/or a pair of magical net 25 goals-above-replacement-scorers being added to the fold...that's where this team is behind Winnipeg (+57 last year) and will continue to be for the next half decade at least.
Its infinitely more exciting for a fanbase to watch fresh young faces hit their stride,than a veteran led group..A playoff berth (first round fodder or not) would be a huge accomplishment for the organization..The media and fanbase would be all over it....Next thing you know,there will be a scramble for season tickets.
For a team that spends to the cap (and then some), the bar should be higher than that. Even an organization run by Dave Nonis can achieve that.
Errr... yeah, okay.
I mean "notable" as in "impressive/evidence of being on the right track" not "impactful/significant to the business", which I agree it might be, for the reasons you've given. That kind of has nothing to do with my point, though.
The average fan or STH (who buy the tickets) could care less if the Canucks spent to the cap (there's no ramifications for it,and the Canucks are nowhere near in cap trouble..far from it).
Vancouver loves a winner,and there would be a media frenzy ,if the young Canucks made it to the post season...I'd enjoy it,although I could definitely see the select few on these boards that would loathe it.
Gilligan missed the post-season *ONCE* and the rank & file asked for his head. I've never said I would be against making the post-season - only that it really isn't much of an accomplishment in today's NHL.
Sorry,..maybe got off topic (and a wee bit optimistic) there..but continue on with your dreary outlook.
Very different circumstances...before he missed the playoffs that one time ,he had already began squandering his inheritance.
Over half of the teams in the league make the playoffs every year, with the point system rewarding incompetence and creating artificial parity, it's possible for an average team to make the playoffs with a few key performances throughout the lineup. I wouldn't be too impressed with making the playoffs only to lose in 4 or 5 games, the real question is when can they win a round or two.
A playoff team with Gaunce even on the roster, say nothing of 3rd line? Never.
Completely agree. I suspect they go max 6 games, but most likely 5. It is the year after and the improvement from the season before that I am most interested in. It also seems like a trend that teams that "over achieve" one season crash the next. (ex) Edm 2017, Col 2015...
I also wouldn't count out Phoenix to make a jump. I like Raanta in net, and they do have some talent that might be ready to bust out.