lol...Vanek ain't sitting. That's what good players do they find ways to score. Whether you like Vanek or not he will get you 40-50 points no matter what team he plays on. We have no clue what Boeser's consistency level will be. They should rotating Burmi and Boeser until someone get hot. I think JV has done enough to stay in.
- LordHumungous

Agreed, so looking for someone who hasn't done enough to stay in. I hope Vanek goes on a tear, but I also hope the least engaged guy sits so the kid can have his debut.

Any recent evidence of a tanking team now being successful?

Carolina? Not yet. Winnipeg with all of its top picks? Not yet. The last ones were Pittsburgh and Chicago and they lucked out with generational players. The Oilers might be the next one (again lucky).

You piped in when I was saying play the kids over worrying about getting a 2nd for Vanek. I think we are arguing the same point. Or are we?


- Robio

Well, since you mentioned it, Chicago and Pittsburgh have won 6 of the last 9 Stanley Cups, so I'd say they''ve been pretty successful. Furthermore, I chimed in just based on your comment you don't care about future draft picks, which is what I take issue with.

The Jets haven't tanked, I don't know where you get that opinion from? They've had one top five pick since they moved to Winnipeg seven years ago, and that was luck because they finished 6th last. Their GM and coach are what's failed them, lack of goaltending and poor coaching is killing what's actually a pretty decent team.

Carolina hasn't tanked either. As mentioned though, anyone who's picked top three has had some measure of success in the past 15 years.

Vanek hasn't appeared engaged in his entire career yet he always produces.
- CanuckDon

Exactly.

Dorsett sucks.
- bloatedmosquito

yeah Dorsett SUCKS! Wait, is that too opinionated? Also, am I allowed to agree with you?
(scroll past this is you're offended by my DD hate, #nocowbell)

If that's your assessment fair enough, I happen to disagree. I see a guy that knows when and were to expend his energies, a veteran that has played through all the situations and can react.

This is the great thing about hockey, that everyone sees things differently and I'm glad there are differences of opinions, except Lefty, he is always right and we are always wrong..
- Makita

I'm always right because most of you don't know what the hell you're talking about, so even if I was wrong, I'm still right

Vanek hasn't appeared engaged in his entire career yet he always produces.
- CanuckDon

He's really not needed, they don't need his 40 points at this point in their rebuild. I'm thinking Boeser and Virtanen can fill that void, but it's a little late for that now.

yeah Dorsett SUCKS! Wait, is that too opinionated? Also, am I allowed to agree with you?
(scroll past this is you're offended by my DD hate, #nocowbell)
- Brooks_Light

I was just giving Dorsett the Subban treatment.

I'm always right because most of you don't know what the hell you're talking about, so even if I was wrong, I'm still right
- LeftCoaster

That's what I was hoping for never let me down...

Well, since you mentioned it, Chicago and Pittsburgh have won 6 of the last 9 Stanley Cups, so I'd say they''ve been pretty successful. Furthermore, I chimed in just based on your comment you don't care about future draft picks, which is what I take issue with.

The Jets haven't tanked, I don't know where you get that opinion from? They've had one top five pick since they moved to Winnipeg seven years ago, and that was luck because they finished 6th last. Their GM and coach are what's failed them, lack of goaltending and poor coaching is killing what's actually a pretty decent team.

Carolina hasn't tanked either. As mentioned though, anyone who's picked top three has had some measure of success in the past 15 years.
- LeftCoaster

Replace "tanked" with sucked while playing young players and both fit what I am talking about. My point is it takes too long and does not guarantee future success.

Vanek hasn't appeared engaged in his entire career yet he always produces.
- CanuckDon

you are bang on with this. No one would ever be able to find a clip of Vanek hussling his ass off, or fired up about anything, the guy has the personality of a wet mop. He will quietly pot in 10-20 goals this year, and do so in the most complacent/uninspired way possible.

I'm always right because most of you don't know what the hell you're talking about, so even if I was wrong, I'm still right
- LeftCoaster

Like Don Cherry...you are only correct 33% of the time now. Probably an age thing.

I'm asking for an example of a team that tanked and got better without lucking their way into a generational player as the top pick (Getting a McD or Matthews as opposed to a Patrick Stefan or Yakupov). Just look at Atlanta / Winnipeg. All those great picks, still meddling years later. I'd rather build as we go as JB is doing now by bringing in 20 somethings. The next step is to play them, so #sitVanek

- Robio

LA, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit, New Jersey. It's not luck if you intentionally lose (Are bad for years) and get elite players as a result. These teams literally all bottomed out for years and picked up elite draft picks in the top 5 or 10 that turned them around and then they won cups.

Like Don Cherry...you are only correct 33% of the time now. Probably an age thing.
- LordHumungous

I was just giving Dorsett the Subban treatment.
- bloatedmosquito

Boeser will play with Baertschi and Horvat. Burmistrov out. Markstrom starts. #batchhockey

Replace "tanked" with sucked while playing young players and both fit what I am talking about. My point is it takes too long and does not guarantee future success.
- Robio

It does guarantee future success, that's my opinion anyway, to what degree is determined by several other things, like how you draft outside of the first round or later in the first round. But it all starts with drafting high in most cases!

Los Angeles, Chicago and Pittsburgh have won 8 of the last nine Stanley Cups and they did it through drafting their most important core players. LA traded a 5th overall Brayden Schenn and a 2nd rounder in Wayne Simmonds to get Mike Richards and they traded Jack Johnson and a 1st round pick to acquire Jeff Carter.

Like Don Cherry...you are only correct 33% of the time now. Probably an age thing.
- LordHumungous

But you're wrong 100% of the time so that 33% is really really good

LA, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit, New Jersey. It's not luck if you intentionally lose (Are bad for years) and get elite players as a result. These teams literally all bottomed out for years and picked up elite draft picks in the top 5 or 10 that turned them around and then they won cups.
- neem55

You missed the word "recent". Detroit and Jersey? When, in the 80s?

LA had 3 top 5 picks in its rise (Hickey - not a star, crap shoot, Doughty - superstar, Schenn, traded for Carter/Richards)

So that leaves Chicago and Pittsburgh who got Toews, Kane, Crosby and Malkin while tanking. What if it was Hickey, Yakupov, Stefan and Ryan Murray instead?

I say luck and not tanking was involved, but agree to disagree.

It does guarantee future success, that's my opinion anyway, to what degree is determined by several other things, like how you draft outside of the first round or later in the first round. But it all starts with drafting high in most cases!

Los Angeles, Chicago and Pittsburgh have won 8 of the last nine Stanley Cups and they did it through drafting their most important core players. LA traded a 5th overall Brayden Schenn and a 2nd rounder in Wayne Simmonds to get Mike Richards and they traded Jack Johnson and a 1st round pick to acquire Jeff Carter.
- LeftCoaster

exactly. You have to establish the core first and then you build around it with trades/FApickups. This second stage is what separates the big GM's from the pack. ANYWAY, I'm excited for Boeser tonight, but ultimetly think the Jets PP will blast us. 4-2, Boeser and Bo score. Ehlers reminds us of what could have been

Boeser will play with Baertschi and Horvat. Burmistrov out. Markstrom starts. #batchhockey
- Brooks_Light

Better than pulling JV. I'm OK with this

You missed the word "recent". Detroit and Jersey? When, in the 80s?

LA had 3 top 5 picks in its rise (Hickey - not a star, crap shoot, Doughty - superstar, Schenn, traded for Carter/Richards)

So that leaves Chicago and Pittsburgh who got Toews, Kane, Crosby and Malkin while tanking. What if it was Hickey, Yakupov, Stefan and Ryan Murray instead?

I say luck and not tanking was involved, but agree to disagree.
- Robio

You've used Stephan and Hickey as examples but dont want to talk about how Detroit/New Jersey/Avalanche tanked to win in the same years they were drafted? Bit of a double standard isn't it? You're argument is WEAK. There simply isn't many busts in modern NHL drafts. Yak is a maybe. Ryan Murray plays big minutes, not a top line but not a bust either.

exactly. You have to establish the core first and then you build around it with trades/FApickups. This second stage is what separates the big GM's from the pack. ANYWAY, I'm excited for Boeser tonight, but ultimetly think the Jets PP will blast us. 4-2, Boeser and Bo score. Ehlers reminds us of what could have been
- neem55

JV will plough him over in the battle of thefirst rounders and he'll be afraid to look up afterwards. 3-2 Nucks

Boeser will play with Baertschi and Horvat. Burmistrov out. Markstrom starts. #batchhockey
- Brooks_Light

Burmistrov has been invisible thus far, good move.

Better than pulling JV. I'm OK with this
- Robio

yeah i dig this move

You've used Stephan and Hickey as examples but dont want to talk about how Detroit/New Jersey/Avalanche tanked to win in the same years they were drafted? Bit of a double standard isn't it? You're argument is WEAK. There simply isn't many busts in modern NHL. Yak is a maybe. Ryan Murray plays big minutes, not a top line but not a bust either.
- neem55

Sorry...confused. Have Detroit and Colorado won after tanking? Detroit missed the playoffs for the first time in about 30 years last year - has it tanked?. Colorado has tanked and not been able to recover despite its picks. It supports my argument (thanks). What other aspects are weak (other than you don't agree and have trouble supporting your counterargument)?

To summarize, I contend that only 2 teams have successfully tanked and then won by drafting stars. Those 2 teams are Chicago and Pittsburgh, who had the benefit of getting generational talents instead of "down year" first rounders. A 3rd team was able to trade the picks for core pieces (again not a guarantee, but LA did it successfully).

Ergo, the Canucks should not tank to win because there is no guarantee it will produce a better team than it has had over the past 20 up and down seasons, which included being 1 win from the Cup with only the twins as top picks on that team.

this thread