You like the Swiss huh... so Nico is your guy?

By the way there is a difference of building through the draft plus getting lucky with the lotto. In contrast to intentionally setting out to destroy your team from the outset to guarantee a bottom finish. The repercussions on endorsing futility have a far greater effect. So you wind up being the Oilers for over a decade. Not to mention many other teams that didn't luck out getting several 1OAs and a generational player to break out of the ineptitude.

You sound like a draftist with your past statements. Getting a high pick can help. Planning to set up your season to be there is dangerous. So your #top5pick was taken as a preference not a goal. But if you want to be a toilet flusher then so be it. A team, is an organic creature.
You can't lock it in the closet. Stock pile food. Then let it out expecting it will eat it up and get stronger. Starving creatures like that wind up dying from not being prepared to ingest.

#draftistbuild but #tankersdestroy
- Nuck4U

I don't have the time for your nonsense. Building through the draft requires top picks. Just like Pitts, Chicago, Toronto,Edmonton and Buffalo have done. Shouldn't have to be ten to do it, edmontons previous fans drafted and traded awful.

3 out of the last 4 years the Canucks have accidentally tanked
- Nucker101

And yet some ppl r still not satisfied lol
Some would argue over how it was done to no end.
Better to look ahead than behind

Green already has Jarvis. I suspect he will choose the rest of the coaching staff.
- CanuckDon

it would have been smart to fire willie earlier and try jarvis at the helm for the rest of the way just to get a feel for what he brings as HC. Sure the players wouldnt have as much steam since there was no playoffs in sight but you'd at least get a sense of his decisions in game etc.

any sensible person would want the highest draft pick possible.
the fact is, it's a lottery, so there is no guarantee where we'll pick, even with last place.

it is not a practical plan to bank on getting a top 2 pick imo.
- dbot

I would like to see a Hartley/ Sutter combination... bring in a couple of guys to work together...
- kaptaan

Why why why.....

makes sense.
i don't have a a hardon (a dragon?) for Jarvis personally.
i'd be ok with letting him go later on if a better candidate was landed.
- dbot

then you didnt understand what I was saying.... probably got tainted by the trolled responses...
Im not saying Jarvis is an amazing coach at the peak of his craft....no....I was saying that he was the best WE HAD.

Yes, I agree that with not getting Ruff or Crawford. Unless Cooper becomes available, I don't think I have a "1st choice" as far as coaches go.

Dallas Eakins has done a good job with the Gulls.....do you go back to that well
- belcherbd

makes you wonder if cooper becomes available with TB missing the POs

Well yeah, but if finish bottom 2 you're guaranteed a top 5 pick and better odds don't hurt either. Plus it's not just about that, it's about having cap space to bend over other teams and taking their bad contracts on in exchange for more picks and prospects. You can also do the Leafs strategy of signing stopgap vets to short term deals and flipping them for picks at the TDL.

It's about more than just hoping for a top 2 pick lottery win.
- Nucker101

Top 5 pick means only as much as the talent in the draft.
I don't peg draft numbers but prefer a players name.

I like in order Cooper then Green.
I mentioned Cooper a few days ago & if he becomes available then do it.
I don't mind Crawford either if its high tempo offense & let the kids loose.
I doubt thats happening let alone practical though.
- Nighthawk

AND pair him with an excellent D coach

It will take a unlikely statistical scenario to drop below 4. That scenario is Colorado not getting 1-3 pick, which is less that. if you run the simulator, that is the number canucks are most likely to get. try for your self http://nhllotterysimulator.com/

if we properly tanked, all the way to the bottom it doesn't guarantee a top3 pick, but it's pretty dam close (4 is the lowest). same with where we are, we are still guaranteed a top5. The lotto makes tanking less attractive, but getting a top5 and putting yourself in the best possible position to get #1 or 2 is still the best option. in other words: tanking gaurantees top5. being a bubble team guarantees SFA.

20 bucks says (cause its Vancouver, and our luck.) we drop out of the top 3. As much as I would love being I #1/2/3.... I'm also a realistic Canuck fan who has been poop on far too many times. Don't get your hopes too high until after we hear the order folks.
- Crazybagoham

Our luck...& being realistic in one post. wtf r u talking about lol
How about the odds say we will drop down before getting 1 or 2OA

then you didnt understand what I was saying.... probably got tainted by the trolled responses...
Im not saying Jarvis is an amazing coach at the peak of his craft....no....I was saying that he was the best WE HAD.
- SMBDragon

if he;s the best we had, why are you saying Green over jarvis? could have promoted Green at any time

It's a little chippy in here.

It's all good as long as they get Middlestadt who's the best of the bunch.
- Nuck4U

I agree pretty much. Cannot wait to argue that either lol

It will take a unlikely statistical scenario to drop below 4. That scenario is Colorado not getting 1-3 pick, which is less that. if you run the simulator, that is the number canucks are most likely to get. try for your self http://nhllotterysimulator.com/

if we properly tanked, all the way to the bottom it doesn't guarantee a top3 pick, but it's pretty dam close (4 is the lowest). same with where we are, we are still guaranteed a top5. The lotto makes tanking less attractive, but getting a top5 and putting yourself in the best possible position to get #1 or 2 is still the best option. in other words: tanking gaurantees top5. being a bubble team guarantees SFA.
- neem55

Is the brass ring for this team. No doubt.

I don't have the time for your nonsense. Building through the draft requires top picks. Just like Pitts, Chicago, Toronto,Edmonton and Buffalo have done. Shouldn't have to be ten to do it, edmontons previous fans drafted and traded awful.
- neem55

Who's the provocateur here with an air of superiority and pretense in your responses. Get real. You again made an erroneous statement bringing me into your silliness. I never said top picks are not welcome or wanted. That's your obtuse take. It's just not sesnible to plan for it. Look at Dbots post on this for example. Many others will say it. I am not on island alone in this.

What I tried to seperate for you to lend credence to your desires is that's a great draftist approach to building in getting high picks. That the quality of picks throughout the rounds count the most to building. This is all good. The intentional scuttling of seasons from the outset and tearing down a team to stay in the gutter is problematic. If you are in that part of that approach then happy toilet flushing.

New United flight attendants

I don't have the time for your nonsense. Building through the draft requires top picks. Just like Pitts, Chicago, Toronto,Edmonton and Buffalo have done. Shouldn't have to be ten to do it, edmontons previous fans drafted and traded awful.
- neem55

Building thru the draft requires picking the best talent.
U can speak nonsense about numbers. Ask Edmonton.

Later gentleman.

Who's the provocateur here with an air of superiority and pretense in your responses. Get real. You again made an erroneous statement bringing me into your silliness. I never said top picks are not welcome or wanted. That's your obtuse take. It's just not sesnible to plan for it. Look at Dbots post on this for example. Many others will say it. I am not on island alone in this.

What I tried to seperate for you to lend credence to your desires is that's a great draftist approach to building in getting high picks. That the quality of picks throughout the rounds count the most to building. This is all good. The intentional scuttling of seasons and tearing down a team to stay in the gutter is problematic. If you are in that part of that approach then happy toilet flushing.
- Nuck4U

That's fine. If we end up with the #1 pick this year, I will be very glad this team "toilet flushed" or whatever stupid description you want to paint reality with. Was it 'toilet flushing' when Pittsburgh gutted their roster to insure top picks for years (2002=5, 2003=1,2004=2,2005=1,2006=2)? How about Chicago (2007=1, 2006= 3, 2005=7, 2004=3)?

Building thru the draft requires picking the best talent.
U can speak nonsense about numbers. Ask Edmonton.
- Nighthawk

How is it nonsense? Who are the best 5 players in the league right now in your opinion?

New United flight attendants


- A_SteamingLombardi

Southwest Air also changed their mission statement:

'We'll beat our competitors…not you'.

So, let me get this straight, because I find it ridiculous. The last 3 season every "expert" is whining about how the Canucks rebuild isn't starting.... the when we tank, are in a great position to get a top3 pick..... now the "edmonton model" is flawed because we fired our terrible coach? I find this weeks new line of reasoning just stupid.

Willie was going to be fired sooner or later, anyone who says Horvat won't be a top 6 center is a complete idiot.

2 months ago, we wanted the "Edmonton model" and to tank and get higher picks in order to acquire more core players for the future (apparently these players grow on trees). OH THE CANUCKS DONT HAVE A #1D.... well we never have had one? On the Gillis era they couldn't find/draft/trade for a #1D. Name 1 in our range, or that we could have acquired. that's what I thought.

Why is the sky suddenly falling now? I'm even more optimistic because we have a crack at a couple really good players (yeah not Matthews/Mcdavid but we really don't have any control over the quality of this years draft class). NO MORE LIDSTER, I've never hated an assistant coach more in my life. Cheer up folks, the day is brighter. Literally NO idea who the next coach will be, I don't see Travis Green being that successful with this roster right now, I'd let him get comfortable with Utica for a few more years, maybe bring him up as Assistant
- Crazybagoham

I hated lidster long before I hated WD. terrible D coach.
Thankfully the 2 of them are gone now along with pearns who did NOTHING

It will take a unlikely statistical scenario to drop below 4. That scenario is Colorado not getting 1-3 pick, which is less that. if you run the simulator, that is the number canucks are most likely to get. try for your self http://nhllotterysimulator.com/

if we properly tanked, all the way to the bottom it doesn't guarantee a top3 pick, but it's pretty dam close (4 is the lowest). same with where we are, we are still guaranteed a top5. The lotto makes tanking less attractive, but getting a top5 and putting yourself in the best possible position to get #1 or 2 is still the best option. in other words: tanking gaurantees top5. being a bubble team guarantees SFA.
- neem55

I ran it like you suggested.

Got this:

1 Carolina Hurricanes
2 Arizona Coyotes
3 Detroit Red Wings
4 Colorado Avalanche
5 Vancouver Canucks

I ran it like you suggested.

Got this:

1 Carolina Hurricanes
2 Arizona Coyotes
3 Detroit Red Wings
4 Colorado Avalanche
5 Vancouver Canucks


- dbot

Im guessing you ran it once then.