View Single Post
Old
11-01-2012, 03:44 PM
  #37
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Sure, I agree. Although the point of having two pretty good project players is that one of them could turn into a pretty good young NHL player, I'm sure you'll agree that having these types of players is vital to an NHL team's success. And the more you have the more likely that you'll be filling holes on your big league roster with young, cheap, improving players rather than older players with higher cap hits and a stronger likelihood of declining effectiveness.

Ultimately a team can squander organizational depth to fill holes on their NHL roster (and a certain amount of it is almost always a good thing) but relying on that to ice a decent NHL team is unsustainable.
That's the big difference between what Gillis is doing with those picks and what Nonis did. Gillis is getting years of mileage out of them. He's also getting players that he can get under contract for reasonable money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Well, except for the fact that when you strike it big with those picks you have repeated chances to get a player like that under contract for less than his actual value until they finally hit unrestricted free agency. Look at Jannik Hansen for instance. He was a bargain at well under a million, now he is a bargain again at a million and change, and on his next contract he might well be a bargain again and he'll probably only then start making about what Higgins makes now.
Higgins makes 1.9m, Hansen makes 1.35m, Lapierre 1m, they're all great deals. A guy like Mason Raymond got more money than Higgins on his second contract.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Sure, but the immediate payout is relatively low and the odds of the "lottery" are relatively high, I definitely respect the value of making that trade off from time to time but if it keeps up over time you are losing value overall.

To this point I wouldn't say I'm terribly unhappy with the choices Gillis has made, but if people want an explanation for why the Canucks prospect pool is filled with nobodies then this trade off is it.
This is really where we disagree, I don't like the odds of the lottery and I've really liked the immediate payout and long term potential of the players we've acquired.


Last edited by Scurr: 11-01-2012 at 03:52 PM.
Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote