View Single Post
Old
05-09-2013, 12:10 PM
  #508
IranCondraAffair
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,167
vCash: 500
You guys keep mentioning Ottawa as a team that re-tooled, but that isn't exactly accurate. Ottawa was actually in the third year of trying "re-tool" the team after their Stanley Cup Finals appearance, when they decided to blow things up. Ottawa got hit with a HUGE amount of injuries and fell apart. The coach was bad and the team needed a change. The core was getting older and competing for the playoffs wasn't an option anymore.

Ottawa TRIED to blow it up but were forced into a another re-tool because of various issues: Some guys just didn't want to go (Alfredsson and Phillips), while others needed to be kept to make minimum salary or because their contracts were too long (Gonchar and Kuba) to make them tradable. In the end, they were forced to retool and the veteran guys they kept ended up turning it around (Gonchar, Phillips, Alfredsson, Spezza, Michalek) along with a new coach.

1. They got rid of an NHL player that no one wanted in Kovalev, but got virtually nothing in return. Are Canuck fans willing to let Burrows go for a 4th rounder because no one probably wants him?

2. Ottawa had a LOT of good/decent NHL prospects developing before the rebuild. Cowen, Greening, Smith, Condra, Silfverberg, O'Brien, Rundblad, Lehner, Butler, Daugavins, Wiercicoh, Gryba, etc.. Ottawa had good NHL prospects because they had been actively trying to re-build/re-tool for years but hadn't been able to blow up the roster until they fell apart. People forget that. Is Vancouver in the same position? Do they have ten-fifteen NHL players on their prospect list right now?

3. Ottawa didn't WANT to trade some guys they traded (Fisher and Kelly). They are/were good players, I still like them. Are the Canucks willing to let go of GOOD NHL players to make room for younger guys with no guarantee of success. Are they willing to give up Kesler or Edler for a bad return in order to commit to the rebuild?

4. A lot of their success comes from coaching (NHL and AHL both). Having two coaches doing well and working together with the same game plans and terminology helps immensely. Ottawa lucked out HUGE in that regard, hoping for Vancouver to do the same is a big risk, IMO

5. Ottawa has moved out (or not retained) a lot of players over a two year period. Fisher, Kelly, Campoli, Kovalev, Foligno, Elliot, Kuba, Ruutu, Lee, etc.. That's almost 1/2 an NHL roster.

6. Ottawa told it's fans it was going to be a three year rebuild to make the playoffs. The last two years have exceeded anyone's expectations.

7. The save % argument that someone brought up earlier is stupid. Ottawa has a high save % because of a combination of factors, namely: Good players (Anderson and Bishop are criminally under rated and Lehner is arguably one of of the best goalie prospects in the NHL), a coaching/team strategy that focuses on allowing outside shots and getting the puck out of the zone after recovery (they call it fast defence IIRC), and one of the best PK's in the league. You can't take away an element of a team and say "They would suck if X didn't exist" Well, "X" dos exist for a reason and you can't take it away to prove a point.

IranCondraAffair is offline   Reply With Quote