Interesting list by Ek this morning on the key elements required to win the Cup:

1. A Clutch Goalie Capable of Making Momentum Changing Saves and who thrives in OT.

2. Depth on Defense. Injuries to a defense are inevitable in a long playoff run

3. The combination of Wiley talented Vets and young players on the top 2 lines.

4. A solid 4th line which can contribute key minutes and key points in the playoffs

5. A group which has seen its share of hard times and learned how to lose before learning how to win.

6. A few key leaders who have raised the Cup in their careers and know what it takes to do that again. (Can be added at the Trade Deadline)

7. A coach capable of managing the ups and downs of a long playoff.

8. A player or two known to be (or poised to become) a clutch playoff performer. A guy who can produce when the pressure mounts, especially in Overtime.

9. Special Teams which are consistently in the top 10 in both PP and PK.

10. Favorable playoff Matchups against teams your team always seems to "have their number" versus.


The Canucks certainly have a few question marks on this list, but they also tick off a number of the key elements.
- KB3Point0

And who better to establish the definitive playoff success criteria than Eklund.

How are you not sure?

There are numerous ways around recapture. Ask Philly. And Boston.
- KB3Point0

How did Philly get around it? Unless you are implying that someone takes a hammer to Luongo's knees so he ends up on LTIR, i don't see it.

Boston? Are you talking about Iggy? Its in the rule that a veteran 35+ in age can sign a one year contract and have some of the cap hit carried over to next season. Luongo does not qualify for either of those clauses.

And who better to establish the definitive playoff success criteria than Eklund.
- AlexF

Yeah, don't know if I'd quite refer to it as the "definitive" list!

For instance:

#3 The combination of Wiley talented Vets and young players on the top 2 lines.

This really should read on the top 3 lines. How many young players were on the Blackhawks' top 2 lines? They had a few on their 3rd line, but their top 2 lines were pretty veteran heavy. Did the Kings even have one young player on their top 2 lines the year before that? They had a bunch of guys who weren't quite "Wiley Vets," but they were too experienced to be consider "young players." The Bruins had maybe one on their top 2 lines the year before that.


#6 A few key leaders who have raised the Cup in their careers and know what it takes to do it again.

This helps, but is overrated. A few key vets who have made it to the finals and lost or vets who are on the verge of retiring after long careers without winning can be just as effective (think Bourque, Andreychuk, or even guys like Hossa after losing the previous 2 seasons, or Selanne in Anaheim even though he's just kept on playing).


#9 Special Teams which are consistently in the top 10 in both PP and PK.

Wrong. You have to be able to kill penalties and you have to be able to score at even strength because the officials don't have the balls to call penalties come playoff time. Chicago's PP was 19th last season. The Kings' PP was 17th the year before. In 2011 Boston's PP was 20th their PK was 16th. Chicago's PP was 16th in 2010. In 2009 Pittsburgh's PP was 20th. The last Stanley Cup winner with top 10 in both PP and PK was Detroit in 2008.

How did Philly get around it? Unless you are implying that someone takes a hammer to Luongo's knees so he ends up on LTIR, i don't see it.

Boston? Are you talking about Iggy? Its in the rule that a veteran 35+ in age can sign a one year contract and have some of the cap hit carried over to next season. Luongo does not qualify for either of those clauses.
- nigelwright275

Iggy? What the hell are you talking about? How could Iggy be an example of getting around recapture? He's on a one year contract that was signed a couple months ago.

LTIR is one potential way around recapture. Philly has Pronger. Boston has Savard. All it takes is one head injury, which happen to be difficult to medically prove either way. Or, for a goalie in his late 30s or early 40s, perhaps it's another nagging injury that prevents him from being able to play the position at the professional level.

Or maybe his contract gets traded to a team looking to hit the cap floor. They can buyout the last 3 years of his contract for around $2.3M and save about $10M in salary. That's a win for the Canucks (or whatever other team has him at that point) a win for Luongo (he gets $2.3M of the $3M+ that he was going to walk away from) and a win for the team acquiring and buying him out (they save $10M+).

Yeah, don't know if I'd quite refer to it as the "definitive" list!

For instance:

#3 The combination of Wiley talented Vets and young players on the top 2 lines.

This really should read on the top 3 lines. How many young players were on the Blackhawks' top 2 lines? They had a few on their 3rd line, but their top 2 lines were pretty veteran heavy. Did the Kings even have one young player on their top 2 lines the year before that? They had a bunch of guys who weren't quite "Wiley Vets," but they were too experienced to be consider "young players." The Bruins had maybe one on their top 2 lines the year before that.


#6 A few key leaders who have raised the Cup in their careers and know what it takes to do it again.

This helps, but is overrated. A few key vets who have made it to the finals and lost or vets who are on the verge of retiring after long careers without winning can be just as effective (think Bourque, Andreychuk, or even guys like Hossa after losing the previous 2 seasons, or Selanne in Anaheim even though he's just kept on playing).


#9 Special Teams which are consistently in the top 10 in both PP and PK.

Wrong. You have to be able to kill penalties and you have to be able to score at even strength because the officials don't have the balls to call penalties come playoff time. Chicago's PP was 19th last season. The Kings' PP was 17th the year before. In 2011 Boston's PP was 20th their PK was 16th. Chicago's PP was 16th in 2010. In 2009 Pittsburgh's PP was 20th. The last Stanley Cup winner with top 10 in both PP and PK was Detroit in 2008.
- KB3Point0

Solid points. On on #9, if that criteria was actually important we'd have won the Stanley Cup, defeating Tampa Bay in the finals. As you say, you can't score on or kill when you're perpetually playing 5-on-5.

Iggy? What the hell are you talking about? How could Iggy be an example of getting around recapture? He's on a one year contract that was signed a couple months ago.

LTIR is one potential way around recapture. Philly has Pronger. Boston has Savard. All it takes is one head injury, which happen to be difficult to medically prove either way. Or, for a goalie in his late 30s or early 40s, perhaps it's another nagging injury that prevents him from being able to play the position at the professional level.

Or maybe his contract gets traded to a team looking to hit the cap floor. They can buyout the last 3 years of his contract for around $2.3M and save about $10M in salary. That's a win for the Canucks (or whatever other team has him at that point) a win for Luongo (he gets $2.3M of the $3M+ that he was going to walk away from) and a win for the team acquiring and buying him out (they save $10M+).
- KB3Point0

Hoping for Luongo to be on LTIR is not really a good plan.

As for the Iggy comment i could not see anything to do with re-capture for Boston so i thought you might have been talking about him. Instead you were in wishful thinking mode that Luongo will get a severe injury.

So really you added nothing to getting around re-capture.

Solid points. On on #9, if that criteria was actually important we'd have won the Stanley Cup, defeating Tampa Bay in the finals. As you say, you can't score on or kill when you're perpetually playing 5-on-5.
- AlexF

Yeah, I agree. 5-on-5 plays is the biggest factor for success, and I'd say having a better PK is more important than a PP.

Hoping for Luongo to be on LTIR is not really a good plan.

As for the Iggy comment i could not see anything to do with re-capture for Boston so i thought you might have been talking about him. Instead you were in wishful thinking mode that Luongo will get a severe injury.

So really you added nothing to getting around re-capture.
- nigelwright275

I presented two possibilities to get around the recapture penalties. I'm sure there are more. Maybe you should read the second one before saying I have added nothing to get around recapture, cause it actually makes a lot of sense. Especially if the cap reaches the $84M or so it should by that stage of Luongo's contract. That would put the cap floor close to $70M. There will be numerous teams trying to come up with any way to add extra cap dollars without spending real dollars at that point.

Lundqvist makes no sense at all....most of the roster is on the downswing of there careers and the Sedins won't be resigning after this year anyway ...it's time for a rebuild in Vancouver
- keatondixon

wrong

Yeah, I agree. 5-on-5 plays is the biggest factor for success, and I'd say having a better PK is more important than a PP.
- Nucker101

That has definitely proven to be true. You can't get continually scored on while shorthanded and expect to make it very far, but you also can't rely on your ability to get power plays as your primary point of offense. Especially as teams that are killing penalties are traditionally given even more leeway to "bend" the rules come the playoffs.

When is a Canucks thread not?
- Cptmjl

Then why waste your time posting in here? Is it the free booze?

wrong
- bloatedmosquito

Slight re tooling then?

Yeah, I agree. 5-on-5 plays is the biggest factor for success, and I'd say having a better PK is more important than a PP.
- Nucker101

I think success has something to do with scoring lots of goals. But I could be wrong.

I think success has something to do with scoring lots of goals. But I could be wrong.
- bloatedmosquito

Allowing a low amount too I think? It's not really an exact science though.

Slight re tooling then?
- Yeti1181

Why? I laugh at people who think there is always a clear contender for the cup. Has LA not taught people that teams do catch lightning in a bottle sometimes?

What would a dedicated retooling phase guarantee? Shouldn't teams always be 'retooling'? It's it a GM's job to constantly refine their team to make them better?

IMO, the Canucks have three big question marks; Booth, Kesler, and Garrison. If these three players can have close to career years then this team will be just fine. They will contend for a cup just like 15 other teams will this coming playoffs.

Why? I laugh at people who think there is always a clear contender for the cup. Has LA not taught people that teams do catch lightning in a bottle sometimes?

What would a dedicated retooling phase guarantee? Shouldn't teams always be 'retooling'? It's it a GM's job to constantly refine their team to make them better?

IMO, the Canucks have three big question marks; Booth, Kesler, and Garrison. If these three players can have close to career years then this team will be just fine. They will contend for a cup just like 15 other teams will this coming playoffs.
- bloatedmosquito

Great point!

IMO Garrison isn't as much of a question mark anymore. The other big question mark will be the 3rd line center and how well they perform. That could be the difference for this team (if Booth and Kesler can stay healthy).

I would also put the number of teams that could contend at closer to 10. 15 might be giving a little too much credit to some of the lower teams, even if they do catch lightning in a bottle.

Why not? At the end of last season numerous hockey reporters stated that they would not be surprised to see both players gone by the start of THIS season. So to why not by the start of next season?

The Canucks currently have three good young goalie prospects, two of whom could be NHL ready this season. There are also a number of goalies who could be available for next season, likely on shorter term deals if they didn't feel one of the kids was ready to take the reigns full time quite yet.
- KB3Point0

Its a positive outlook but goalies are a different breed of hockey player. I think only one out of those three will be ready for the NHL this season. It would also be quite a surprise if any will be as good as Roberto or Corey. I have my doubts.

Its a positive outlook but goalies are a different breed of hockey player. I think only one out of those three will be ready for the NHL this season. It would also be quite a surprise if any will be as good as Roberto or Corey. I have my doubts.
- thundachunk

I agree, was just saying that 2 could theoretically be ready to play in the NHL this year. I think Lack and Eriksson will be ready by 2014-15 (not sure if either will be ready for a starting role by then). And it would be tough for any of them to be as good as Schneider or Luongo, not impossible though!

I agree, was just saying that 2 could theoretically be ready to play in the NHL this year. I think Lack and Eriksson will be ready by 2014-15 (not sure if either will be ready for a starting role by then). And it would be tough for any of them to be as good as Schneider or Luongo, not impossible though!
- KB3Point0

Not impossible. Lacks height and mentality for the game will give him an advantage. I am going to be honest I don't know and haven't seen enough of Eriksson to make legitimate statement on him but what I have seen he seems... Secure? I don't know if thats the right word but he can make an impact in the future.

Why? I laugh at people who think there is always a clear contender for the cup. Has LA not taught people that teams do catch lightning in a bottle sometimes?

What would a dedicated retooling phase guarantee? Shouldn't teams always be 'retooling'? It's it a GM's job to constantly refine their team to make them better?

IMO, the Canucks have three big question marks; Booth, Kesler, and Garrison. If these three players can have close to career years then this team will be just fine. They will contend for a cup just like 15 other teams will this coming playoffs.
- bloatedmosquito

By lightning in a bottle you mean a legit playoff goalie right? Booth is my only question mark of those three. Garrison showed me how he can adapt to new players and positions. Kesler other than injury I don't question $hit.(Dives not included) Booth has been a bust. Get what we can from him and move on. He can take all 3 question marks.

Allowing a low amount too I think? It's not really an exact science though.
- Nucker101

I've seen many defensive teams allow a reasonable low amount of goals but still get knocked out of the playoffs. However I've seen relatively few high-scoring teams get booted out (2012 PIT v PHI stands out as a wild exception) unless their scoring suddenly dried up (eg 2013 PIT v BOS).

There's certainly no formula and champs usually balance both, but if I had to pick one or the other it's tough to fault scoring more than the other guy. Plus it's make the sport entertaining, as it should be.

By lightning in a bottle you mean a legit playoff goalie right? Booth is my only question mark of those three. Garrison showed me how he can adapt to new players and positions. Kesler other than injury I don't question $hit.(Dives not included) Booth has been a bust. Get what we can from him and move on. He can take all 3 question marks.
- thundachunk

I'd also put a question mark on Kassian over an 82 game season + playoffs, mostly because we've all penned him in as a top liner this year. If he can establish the game he's been touted to have (Bertuzzi-esque) with consistency we'll have been given a real boost.

I suppose my general view is that just for our established players to return to their peak form (if that were even possible) is not enough with this group. We'll need something extra, and I'm afraid something significant, to change our stars.

I'd also put a question mark on Kassian over an 82 game season + playoffs, mostly because we've all penned him in as a top liner this year. If he can establish the game he's been touted to have (Bertuzzi-esque) with consistency we'll have been given a real boost.

I suppose my general view is that just for our established players to return to their peak form (if that were even possible) is not enough with this group. We'll need something extra, and I'm afraid something significant, to change our stars.
- AlexF

Good point. Gillis said a couple years ago that every team needs about 2 players each year to step up and have career years (I may have paraphrased a little). The Canucks will need that this year. We have a few guys who fit the bill and will need at least 2 of them to step up. Kassian, the 3rd line center (Schroeder, Gaunce, Horvat, whoever fills the role), Santorelli (3rd line center maybe?), Corrado, even Weber.

To me Kassian stands out as the key out of the bunch. He has the most promise and also happens to be the same age going into this season as CoHo was going into last season when he broke out offensively.

I'd also put a question mark on Kassian over an 82 game season + playoffs, mostly because we've all penned him in as a top liner this year. If he can establish the game he's been touted to have (Bertuzzi-esque) with consistency we'll have been given a real boost.

I suppose my general view is that just for our established players to return to their peak form (if that were even possible) is not enough with this group. We'll need something extra, and I'm afraid something significant, to change our stars.
- AlexF

He has the durability but his hands are not quite there. He will be good but we might be expecting a little much.

Ian Esplen: Lundquist?
Lundquist?
- IanEsplen

Luonquist?