HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Report: It's down to two

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-25-2005, 04:36 PM
  #51
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 28,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkriegs
Burke's tenure with the league office as league czar was average at best. He refused to dole out suspensions (or limited ones) for some serious incidents.
Yeah I'm trying not to rehash alot of that. His part in the last CBA I'm not as well versed on.

Hasbro is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:46 PM
  #52
anguscertified
HFB Partner
 
anguscertified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkriegs
A couple more years? How much more time does a GM need to address his weaknesses.

The absence of Bertuzzi in the playoffs is more credence that Burke failed to address weaknesses. The Canucks are more of a one-line team that apparently couldn't overcome the loss of their 2nd best player. That speaks volumes of how good the rest of the squad is in overcoming adversity. Apparently, Burke hasn't yet realized there is a difference in regular season performance vs. playoff performance.

Crawford's performance, or lack thereof, is under Burke's umbrella. Beyond regular season achievements, what has Crawford done for VAN during the playoffs? One can make a strong argument that Crawford's post season success was more attributable to the BETTER teams he had in COL than HIS performance as a coach.
I tend to agree with most of your post, except this part. The team lost there 2nd best player(but most effective at disturbing the other teams defensemen), and still went to a 7th game OT against the cup finalists, a team that Sutter had firing on all cylinders. The Canucks were a patchwork team, with new guys like Rucinsky, Sanderson, and Bergevin occupying spots. The loss of #1 goalie in the 3rd game too....this team overcame a lot to even get to 7 games against a very, very determined Calgary Flames squad. They did more without their 2nd best player and patchwork players then healthy Wings/Sharks teams did.

anguscertified is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:55 PM
  #53
Buds4ever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7
vCash: 500
I'd take Smith....

I start this as a fan of both candidates. I think both would do the job well. Look at Smith's credentials. He was one of the lead scouts that helped develop the Islanders dynasty. Then he went to Detroit and headed up the scouting department. His leadership at the draft landed that team some incredible drafts. Look at 1989 specifically.

1989
11 Sillinger
32 Boughner
53 Lidstrom
74 Fedorov
116 Drake
221 Konstantinov

Then look at his success with the Rangers. Alot of the trades and free agency moves were a result of ownership, not the general manager.

1990
34 Weight
85 Zubov

1991
15 Kovalev

1992
48 Norstrom

Some great steals. He's a creative guy who values the draft when he's allowed to develop players. Very underated from that perspective. I like both candidates but my edge goes to Smith.

Buds4ever is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 07:26 PM
  #54
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 8,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtuzzi21
I tend to agree with most of your post, except this part. The team lost there 2nd best player(but most effective at disturbing the other teams defensemen), and still went to a 7th game OT against the cup finalists, a team that Sutter had firing on all cylinders. The Canucks were a patchwork team, with new guys like Rucinsky, Sanderson, and Bergevin occupying spots. The loss of #1 goalie in the 3rd game too....this team overcame a lot to even get to 7 games against a very, very determined Calgary Flames squad. They did more without their 2nd best player and patchwork players then healthy Wings/Sharks teams did.
I understand your points. However, 2 years ago VAN overcame a 3-1 1st round deficit to only blow a 3-1 deficit to MIN. Last year, VAN lost a 7 game series in the 1st round.

What VAN did in the 1st rd. vs what DET, SJ did in later rounds is really irrelevant. Why? because teams like CAL, MIN, ANA of the past 2 years only got HOTTER as the series progressed. Therefore, VAN actually got a CAL team warming up, gaining confidence by upsetting the #3 seed in 7 games, and pushing forward.

Other teams have lost significant players and advanced further. COL = Forsberg; DET = Yzerman, etc.

I'm sorry, but you can't call the team "patchwork" when the the GM of the team assembled those parts at the trade deadline. That was the TEAM HE assembled.

blitzkriegs is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 07:27 PM
  #55
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,645
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkriegs
No. It's 29 other teams did not fulfill their ultimate goal. And it will be that way every year a season is played.
I'd disagree. What would you rather

a) Team wins the SC one year then completely closes its doors/relocates because its unviable

b) Team is a solid contender, with a chance to win the SC, that brings in the fans and is financially secure for the future.

I'll take B, and so would most owners. A GMs primary goal should not be to win the SC at all costs (because it just can't be guaranteed), but to build a team that is a has a good chance to win the SC and is financially stable. Fans respond to hope, hope sells as good as anything else, if the team has a chance and plays a game the fans like then the fans should come, if the fans come then the money comes and the owner is happy.


Quote:
If your team is a CONTENDER as so many Canucks fans like to consider them, then does a GM who knows what his teams weaknesses are, NOT turn them into strenghts? How does a team that was supposedly profitable, NOT dip into the well to reach the next level?
McCaw was trying to sell the team. The Nucks would be easier to sell and bring in more if they won the SC, but spending $10m-20m wouldn't guarantee a SC (just ask all of the high priced losers over the last 5 years, only one team can win). I'm sure McCaw would rather have a strong, profitable club than risk over-spending and probably still not getting a SC.

Quote:
Amazing how Burke has the "it's ok i never brought my team to the next level, did not plug in the holes, etc. because I was budget conscious" defense. Burke had 3+ seasons from the time the team exited the doldrums to supposed 'contender.' That's more than ample time to separate the two and evaluate EACH.
The Canucks are also not that deep or rich enough they can deal away a lot of picks or prospects. They never sucked as badly or as long as some other teams in order to get a really deep talent base. Nor do they have enough budget, like some teams, that can throw away draft picks like water and then just wander off to the UFA market and drop $5m on a UFA to plug a gap.

Quote:
Did Colorado not make the move to get Roy? Dallas for Belfour? Red Wings for Hasek (rd. 1)? because the GM addressed the WEAKNESS?
Its all well and good to say get Hasek or Roy or Belfour or Cujo but Burke didn't have the budget to throw $8-10m at a goalie. Short of kidnapping their children they wouldn't sign for $3m.

Goal is the only major flaw in the Nucks (apart from the system could be a lot more boring but playoff effective). Burke or no Burke, it'll probably not be fixed short of finding a diamond in rough.

me2 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.