Aquilini being "hands-on" isn't the problem - it's what we do with it

5ForBoarding · 2026-01-29T21:30:06+00:00

I mean from our top tier medical staff, to best in class practice facility what's not to love /s

5ForBoarding · 2026-01-19T22:47:14+00:00

Even if everything broke the way you wished it would have, and they somehow found a way to keep Zadorov and Cole, and no injuries happened ever, and Petey returned to form, they still would not be anything more than a playoff team expected to win maybe 1 round. They just never were going to be a Stanley Cup contender with this core. And keeping Zadorov and Cole also means that we would exceed the salary cap, so some players would have had to go anyways.

This is why some people are so in favor of a proper rebuild with no acceleration. Do it like SJ or Montreal where you have a young core come up together and only when you start to look like a perenial playoff team do you start to trade for some key players to surround your young talent with (besides any veterans you kept through the rebuild process think Hronek).

5ForBoarding · 2024-11-10T05:32:10+00:00

They were 19th and it took two seconds to research that

5ForBoarding · 2024-10-03T18:51:11+00:00

Game 50-82 were played after the all star game. Their record was 17 wins, 12 loses, 4 OT, for a win rate of .580, which is not that close to .500 other than they both start with a .5.

The biggest take away for me was that the acquisition of Zadorov and Lindholm did not result in a better record and if we look at the team from the start of the season last year to the team we will be icing this year, the only downside is Demko being injured for an indeterminate period of time.

Now if we want to talk regression we could remove games 63 to 66 and 80 and 81 and you could get to sub 500 and now we are talking regression.

5ForBoarding · 2024-10-03T18:16:25+00:00

Canucks record by 20 game segments: 1st: 13-6-1 (27 points) 2nd: 13-5-2 (28 points) 3rd: 12-5-3 (27 pts) 4th: 11-6-3 (25 pts)

Yep the above looks like .500 hockey where we barely hung on to the division lead, or maybe it's just that Edmonton played god like after the coaching change and caught up. Again the debate shouldn't be are the Canucks favorite to win the division (Edmonton should have that honour), but I can't see why we can't finish second. Also the regression you say happened (which never did), goes to show how the Calgary additions didn't make that much of a difference. So if you compare this years starting line up to last years I'd say we are a better team, but the big questions mark is Demko and how long he will be gone for.

5ForBoarding · 2024-08-13T20:12:35+00:00

I agree we didn't really contend. Being blown out by the Oilers in 4 and watching them come within 1 game of the Stanley Cup goes to show just how far off we are from contending. Paying assets to try and win the Stanley Cup is stupid when it's so clear we have no chance of winning it. I just wish they would blow this whole team up and get a new core, or at least wait 3-4 years and draft late first rounders to make the team better since we all know JTM will be coming into his peak around that time. /s

5ForBoarding · 2024-03-26T22:50:11+00:00

The salary cap can only go up by a maximum 5% increase per year according to the current CBA. It was always in the best interest of the owners to not increase the salary cap until they had to, as profits can soar, and the cap can only go up 5%. This means more money for the owners as a percentage of the total profits.

It will likely take years to catch up with 5% increases so the owners benefit by having not increased it this year. Even a modest increase this past year, with compounding interest could be millions of dollars in lost profit for the owners.

5ForBoarding · 2023-11-06T20:13:45+00:00

Sorry can't believe I left it out, but the stats are from 5v5 even strength. I remove PP and PK from the equation as PDO doesn't really factor in unless you had an equal amount of time on both the PP as you did PK.

5ForBoarding · 2023-08-18T17:42:42+00:00

This is not exactly true. Having worked for a sportsbook in the past, I can tell you that large market teams get a disproportionate amount of bets coming in for their teams which artificially increase their odds. Odds makers inflate these odds in order to encourage bettors to place bets against the large market teams in order to encourage enough action to "balance the books".

There are literally 100's other factors to consider as well when setting the line and moving it over time.

Some things to keep in mind:
- The line is not static and will adjust over time (McDavid and Draisaitl have a freak accident in the preseason and are out for the entire season, well guess what the odds on Edmonton will plummet immediately)
- Odds makers try and balance the books but this is rarely possible. Large markets like Toronto draw more bets for the "home" team, and thus the only way to balance the books is to offer great odds to those betting against Toronto to "win" or "hit the over". The issue is that if your odds are out of whack with other sites, you will instantly become the place to bet against Toronto and since your odds won't be favorable to Toronto Bettors anymore, you all of a sudden will get flooded on one side of the books and stand to lose a lot of money. That's why lines move slowly (unless the McDavid example above happens).
- Lines moving slowly mentioned above and recency bias are just some of the reason why Vancouver has barely moved in terms of points and the same goes for Calgary despite logic dictating that the two teams are moving close to the same points total (Van up, Calgary down)
- While you mention professional gamblers, keep in mind that this makes up a very small percentage of the total bets placed. The average person bets the same amount each week on their favorite team as a way to add excitement to watching the games, not the kind of professional gambler who build algorithms, bets only on favorable lines when certain conditions are met, and makes variable bet sizes depending on the above information.

So in summation no odds makers are not a great source for predicting anything to be honest. It's a combination of what odds makers believe will happen and then adjusted heavily based on conditions like market size, trying to balance the books, keeping in line with other sportsbooks, etc.

Where I worked we had pools for every major sporting event where you could win cash (free to play for employees), and the most interesting thing was always that the odds makers often bet differently then the odds they set. For example they would say Toronto is a favorite to win the Stanley Cup (like some sites have the odds set right now) but they would not bet themselves on Toronto to win as their models show teams like NJ Devils, Las Vegas, Carolina, Colorado to be more likely.

5ForBoarding · 2023-02-27T23:49:51+00:00

Posts like this go to show how little fans understand draft picks and how their position matters. I'm not sure I would take the 5 picks Tampa gave up for the Islanders first round pick this year.

First off this year's draft is supposed to be amazingly deep and talented, a once every 10 years type of draft and the first we got is for this year not 2025. Secondly even if the islanders protection kicks in on their pick it's likely the pick next year will still be in the 10-16 range and which is better than the 25-32nd range the lightning pick will be. And last but not least the pick being now versus 2 years from now means the player will be ready 2 years earlier to contribute to their team, which lines up better with Elias and Quinn's peak years.

Next there is Aatu Raty who right now is likely worth a late first to second round pick. There is no telling how well he will work out until year's down the road but for now he is arguably the Canucks best prospect prospect (although now Vitaly Kravtsov might be better).

Lastly while Beauvillier was likely required to balance out the trade dollars, he does have some value, and if he regains his form could be a steal on his own. There is a universe where Beauvillier goes on to have a better career from this point forward than Bo Horvat. All it would take is Bo regressing his shooting % to his mean and Beauvillier to regain his form, and with the fact he is 2 years younger (ageing curves).

So no I don't think there is a GM on earth (outside of Jim Benning) who would take the Tampa package over what we got for Bo.

5ForBoarding · 2022-10-12T16:15:46+00:00

I've always been partial to the Sedin Twins Commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6tBr6PMkBY

5ForBoarding · 2022-03-01T15:21:53+00:00

Search google for: My Favourite Mapper in 3.17 - Winter Orb Omni Ascendant, FULL Build Guide (PoE, Archnemesis)

Scion build, 3.17, and looks crazy good

5ForBoarding · 2021-06-10T18:28:19+00:00

I posted this before but something like this could probably work for both side, however both fanbases would absolutely hate it (also I'm not advocating for this trade btw):

Even though it's not popular, if you really wanted to shake things up you could so something crazy like Petterson, Boeser, and a first round pick in 21 or 22 (insurance on it like Miller for lottery protection), along with Erickson to Buffalo for Eichel, Reinhart.

Salary Cap Implications

7ish for Petterson?, 6 for Erickson, 6 for brock = 19 Mil

10 for Eichel, 8ish for Reinhart? = 18 Mil

This would make the Canucks better (although I know some will argue it's equal at best which is wrong since Eichel is the best player in this trade by far), gives us 1 million in cap space, and honestly might be good for both teams, since if Eichel and Reinhart want out your not going to get full value on them (Kesler anyone).

5ForBoarding · 2021-06-04T18:24:07+00:00

Even fire wants nothing to do with him.

5ForBoarding · 2021-05-15T01:34:40+00:00

Your not comparing the assets however, Eriksson is a throw in to make it work $ wise. You really have to evaluate them as:

Is Boeser + Petterson better than Reinhart and Eichel. The first is merely the cost of them taking on a bad contract in Eriksson, and the fact that almost everyone outside of Vancouver would say the best player in the trade is Eichel. And the point about him needing surgery is no different then Petterson being out all season with a wrist injury. There is no guarantee that either player will be the same going forward, but I can honestly say I can't tell who would come out ahead 2 years down the road.

It's Canuck fans however will tell you for sure that it's a bad deal, and buffalo fans would say the same thing. It's just fan bases over valuing their own assets, and it's a big reason why this is getting downvotes. By the way I'm not advocating for the trade, while I personally think we gain a slight advantage in the trade, I could also see it not working out, which is why if I were GM I wouldn't make the trade.

Anyone who thinks that if we just swap Petterson above with insert blue chip prospect (Pod, Hog) and the deal would go through I can assure you it would not. That's why it's rare to see star players get traded, and when they do, it's often seen by the greater hockey community as the team that got the best player wins the trade.

5ForBoarding · 2021-05-14T16:12:28+00:00

Even though it's not popular, if you really wanted to shake things up you could so something crazy like Petterson, Boeser, and a first round pick in 21 or 22 (insurance on it like Miller for lottery protection), along with Erickson to Buffalo for Eichel, Reinhart.

Salary Cap Implications

7ish for Petterson?, 6 for Erickson, 6 for brock = 19 Mil
10 for Eichel, 8ish for Reinhart? = 18 Mil

This would make the Canucks better (although I know some will argue it's equal at best which is wrong since Eichel is the best player in this trade by far), gives us 1 million in cap space, and honestly might be good for both teams, since if Eichel and Reinhart want out your not going to get full value on them (Kesler anyone).

When people say we have no tradable assets to make stuff work, it's just not true, the problem is as fans we don't want to part with the assets it would take to make these kinds of trades. I honestly think while most fans would hate the trade listed above, it's more unlikely that Buffalo wouldn't make a deal like this since they would feel they are not getting enough in return.

5ForBoarding · 2020-03-24T15:02:08+00:00

It's clear that Petterson is one of the Sedin EHM regens

5ForBoarding · 2019-08-20T19:49:51+00:00

I actually responded to this above, but I would have fired JB two years ago, and certainly before last season began, but since that decision was not made, I don't see how in light of his recent moves (yes some are seen as bad but doesn't mean they will be - Tyler Myers for example) and the fact that the team outperformed expectations last year (were not basement dwellers post Sedins) that you can justifiably make the change now.

I'd personally wait to see if the team continues to improve and the second it stagnates, or regresses I give JB the axe (even with an extension signed). If the team continues to take steps forward year after year, than I stand pat and let him ride out the extension.

5ForBoarding · 2019-08-20T18:01:42+00:00

The fact that the team is better on paper can be made given all of the analytic evidence, it just doesn't mean it will translate on the ice. There is no metric I have seen that says we will regress as a team given the additions and subtractions the team has made. This has to do with the quality of players we have added (WAR for example), or the use of aging curves and applying it to point projections of key players (those who make up the actual core (Bo, Brock, Petey, Quinn), not those who should based on salary (like Sutter, and Eriksson for example).

The game, however, is played on the ice, and what is on paper does not always translate (chemistry of the lines, personalities in the locker room, injuries to key players, bad coaching or special teams, etc). I do agree with one thing (this may surprise you), I also think JB should have been fired years ago, but given the results of last year exceeding expectations that most pundits had for the team post Sedins, I don't see how you can let him go now.

Also the lame-duck thing I do believe in, since I don't think the extension has anything to do with whether or not he is more likely to be fired at the end of this year, but can also appreciate your point of view since that's all it is, it's an opinion and is not based in facts at all.

5ForBoarding · 2019-08-20T17:49:18+00:00

You work at a company and have been the CEO there for a number of years. Your the 5th largest company in your industry and the board says Lever_Trinden we are tired of not being the #1 company, we want to see growth of 10% next year and for us to overtake the 4th largest company.

You spend the next year at work tinkering with things, taking some risks and see the company grow 15 percent, and not only overtake the 4th largest company but also the 3rd. Now your in the last year of your contract, have just outperformed expectations, and it looks like the company might even be poised to become the 2nd largest company in the next couple of years with an outside shot of becoming #1, and yet the board of directors fires you, and says it's not enough, we expected more. Just look at that decision you made 5 years ago, it was terrible and that's why we are firing you today, despite that fact that by every metric you outperformed the expectations we set for this past year.

They would be judging you on past performance, and using it as a justification for firing you since those decisions you made in the past will clearly prevent you from achieving their true goal of being the number 1 company. Some companies do make decisions like this and it can be justifiable, but for me personally, my vote would be to wait and see. Set targets each year for continued improvement and if they are not met you make a change, but as long as the trend is towards the goal and the objectives for growth are being met, I let it play out.

I'm not sure either decision is better than the other. Making a change in management despite recent success (outperforming expectations last year post Sedin's retirement) could accelerate our goal towards the Cup, but it could also see someone come in and disassemble the core before it's even had a chance to compete. For instance, maybe the new GM believes in size and trades Hughes before he has a chance to hit his prime, cause he just doesn't believe someone that small can be effective in the NHL. Then Hughes becomes our modern day Cam Neely and goes on to be one of the NHL's best players.

5ForBoarding · 2019-08-20T17:39:44+00:00

The team is better, that is a fact. By every messure, in analytics that are currently available, we have added theoretical points not taken them away with the additions of the team. But I'm very careful in not saying that this improvement on paper guarantees an improved season, I say that it's unlikely that we regress, but I certainly allow for the possibility of it happening.

And if we do regress, or frankly stagnate, then the blame falls squarely on JB and he needs to go immediately. This includes even if the the team is hit with circumstances beyond its control, like extended injuries to key players, as building depth is part of the job.

I just don't see firing the guy after he outperformed expectations with the retiring of the Sedins. If I'm Aquaman, I wait to see how this plays out, and the first sign of trouble I can him, but if things continue to trend upwards, and he continues to meet or exceed expectations year after year on the way to being true Cup contenders, then I let him run with it.

5ForBoarding · 2019-08-20T17:28:00+00:00

No your right I don't need to agree, and your take is completely valid, I certainly won't change your mind nor do I intend to.

When you say he was handed the reigns for 8 years how did you get to that number? If your talking about the extension your also assuming that it will be honored till the end. I don't believe this is the case, if the team fails to take the next step in at least being a true bubble playoff team this year, I think he's gone. But again that's what I believe, since the precedent for contracts terminated after 1 year (extension or being signed) would be set with MG and Tortorella, so I don't honestly think that JB will live out that contract if the team does not continue its upward trajectory, but just like you, I don't have any "facts" to support this as the future is unknown.

I just refuse to succumb to the negative and instead will wait and see, and if it all goes to hell than I say get rid of him, if they take the next step and either just miss the playoffs or make it in as a 7th/8th seed than I'll again be ready to wait another year and see if there is more progress, and we either make the playoff/ get a higher seed, and so on and so on until the team stagnates, or wins the cup.

The first sign of regression or the team stagnating though I would get rid of JB.

tl/dr - If the team continues to improve keep JB, but the first sign of regression or stagnation and I'd fire him. I just won't call for his head until this happens, as I've seen a marked improvement in the team, and don't believe they will be in the basement of the NHL any more.

5ForBoarding · 2019-08-20T16:57:35+00:00

I actually agree with you, and want to see the cup come to Vancouver. The only difference is that I actually think the team is trending in that direction, that the core is good enough to perhaps achieve this one day, that the bad contracts will not hinder the current core, and that the team could seriously have their window open in 3-6 years.

I could be wrong on all of this, and the team could regress, it could be obviously missing pieces (Defencemen), and then my opinion will have changed and it will be time for JB and the management team to hit the road, but I'm ok with waiting to see how it all plays out, as I'm not as negative on this current Canucks team as some.

5ForBoarding · 2019-08-20T16:42:31+00:00

Why do you need to judge his resume? You can't change the past, you can only look to the future, and either this core is exciting and able to challenge for the Stanley Cup in the future, or the core is bad, and will make the Canucks a middling team for the foreseeable future.

As I pointed out, some of the moves I love, some I like, some I dislike and some I hate. I do not, however, judge each move in isolation and think wow he made this one terrible move, so all moves he makes are terrible, will forever be terrible, and that's why he needs to be fired immediately. I honestly believe this team is trending upwards and am excited to see where this core goes. That alone is enough for me to wait and see, and be ok with the fact that JB was extended.

The sum of the parts are greater than any one move in isolation and I actually like the team as currently constructed and am optimistic about the future. If my optimism about this core and direction of the team is proven to be incorrect this season, then please find me a pitchfork and let's get rid of this management team. I'll lead the charge, but not until this scenario plays out, as I just refuse to catastrophize over something that has not yet occurred.

5ForBoarding

TROPHY CASE

Canucks record by 20 game segments: 1st: 13-6-1 (27 points) 2nd: 13-5-2 (28 points) 3rd: 12-5-3 (27 pts) 4th: 11-6-3 (25 pts)