Value of: Canucks Fire Sale

[Randy Randerson]

One big difference though, Vancouver is not a hockey market, fans will not show up if the team is in full tank mode, we are a very fickle fan base here. Combine that with the price of tickets here and it would be a recipe for disaster, the last time the team was that bad was the late 90's where there was talk of the team moving. Trust me when I say this market would not make it through a rebuild.

The way that Benning is doing it is the best way, people seem to forget that when Linden and Benning were hired they said right away that moves would be made that people would have issue with, which is what has happened, Benning is building from the goalie out, people don't see that, its a route that works for this market and this team.

We all saw what happened last year when we finished 27th over all and still ended up with the worst possible scenario in terms of draft picks, I really don't want to see that happen again.

There are some differences for sure btw Edm/Tor (and Cgy, Wpg, Mtl, Ott) and Vancouver - Weather plays a huge part because you guys can play other sports pretty much year round, but I really think there's a big enough population with enough of an ingrained hockey culture to make it through a rebuild. I agree that the team wouldn't be ravenously supported through the worst of it, but if it were done right I don't think you'd have any issue getting the casual portion of the fanbase back

The retool approach is fine if you can find core players without top 5 picks, but those top picks are super helpful to find the guys to build around. Juolevi and Boeser look like a good start so who knows, maybe they'll get by without bottoming out. It just never worked for the leafs, but our drafting was awful

 

[ginner classic]

Toronto is a hockey market, Vancouver isn't. Period. Vancouver also has the highest cost of living in North America, people aren't going to spend 100+ dollars on tickets to watch a team that is trying to lose.

Strawman. Don't equate rebuild with tanking. Not the same thing.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Real rebuilds work, Oilers are the example of it taking a long time but they'll come around and will be scary as hell when it happens because of the plethora of talent they've racked up - seems like they're trending up bigtime now, and they'll be contenders for a decade when they do

I'll have to disagree with this. In the modern era, "real rebuilds" (i.e. completely blowing it and starting from scratch) is very risky, and failure stories far outweigh the success stories. There was a time, pre 1995, when 'blowing it up' and stockpiling high picks could be a relatively short recipe to success, but this was during an era when there was far more parity between 'boy' and 'man.'

Once upon a time, talented and skinny 18-20 year old kids could come into the league and immediately start dominating. This was also during a time when team's often had only 2 'good' lines, with the other two lines being below average.

Those days are gone now. Almost all teams have 4 very good lines, and the athleticism and physicality of the game is far greater than it was back then. The leap from 'boy' to 'man' in the current era is a steep one.

For most 'franchise' players, it often takes 2-3 years plus veteran guidance, etc., to really get to that next level. Yes - generational talents such as Crosby, Ovechkin, and McDavid are the exception, but more times than not, it is extremely difficult for a team to

1) "blow it up"
2) Except a bunch of 18-20 year old kids to lead a team surrounded by 'average' vets that have had 'average' careers.

Tampa Bay is probably the closest example of a team that has rebuilt relatively quickly (i.e. From 2004 to 2015), but lest we forget, even Tampa Bay had guys like Lecavlier and St. Louis within the line-up while guys like Stamkos and Hedman were getting their feet wet.

Teams like Chicago, Pittsburgh, and LA have won multiple cups obviously, but how many years did they struggle for? How many other teams have tried to follow that model and have NOT seen their 'tanking' realized? (i.e. Edmonton, Toronto, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Carolina, NYI, Minnesota, Calgary, etc., etc., etc).

There's a reason why over the past 10-15 years, a lot of the same teams that were bottom feeders than, continue to be bottom feeders now.

Florida is just starting to get real good. Are they the ultimate example of how a team should rebuild? Really?

 

[PetterssonSimp]

MtB is possibly one of the worst of Canuck faithful for these types of overreaction.
Canucks were playing like their 6th in 9 nights. They were the tired team on the road playing 3 different healthy scratch players last night against a Ducks team that was called to win this division.
How about we actually see another playoff team play the Canucks again before we claim this team garbage like every other pundit.

I'm not gonna touch these proposals as they are a literal version of throwing **** at the wall too see if any sticks

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Strawman. Don't equate rebuild with tanking. Not the same thing.

So for the canucks to rebuild what would your definition of rebuilding consist of?

If we are trading away people like the Sedin's, yes we are trying to rebuild.

 

[ginner classic]

Toronto is a hockey market, Vancouver isn't. Period. Vancouver also has the highest cost of living in North America, people aren't going to spend 100+ dollars on tickets to watch a team that is trying to lose.

And what exactly do you base that on? Would you care to support that with some analysis?

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

There are some differences for sure btw Edm/Tor (and Cgy, Wpg, Mtl, Ott) and Vancouver - Weather plays a huge part because you guys can play other sports pretty much year round, but I really think there's a big enough population with enough of an ingrained hockey culture to make it through a rebuild. I agree that the team wouldn't be ravenously supported through the worst of it, but if it were done right I don't think you'd have any issue getting the casual portion of the fanbase back

The retool approach is fine if you can find core players without top 5 picks, but those top picks are super helpful to find the guys to build around. Juolevi and Boeser look like a good start so who knows, maybe they'll get by without bottoming out. It just never worked for the leafs, but our drafting was awful

We are not a sports market here and definitely not a hockey market. We are a market that does well if the team is playing well. We are city full of hipsters and yuppies, these people couldn't care less about sports.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

And what exactly do you base that on? Would you care to support that with some analysis?

Late 80's and late 90's. The latter of which consisted of talks of us moving. Is that evidence enough for you?

Or how about the fact that when the Canucks are out every year, most people in this city couldn't care less about hockey?

 

[DS7]

Do you remember the late 90's at all? I'm not wrong, do some research. Also taking that route worked so well for Edmonton right? I would rather watch a team that is trying to be competitive than one that is purposefully tanking in hopes that they might get a generational player, eventually. No thanks.

What didn't work well for Edmonton, but worked well for Pittsburgh, Tampa, Chicago, LA?

While we're on the subject of straying away from models that don't work. Wouldn't you then say the Brian Burke/Dave Nonis era Leafs (who traded away picks to make playoffs) and the Jay Feaster era Flames scare you away just as much from thinking pushing for the playoffs with an aging and underperforming veteran core be just as scary? It scares me as i'm already seeing tons of parallels with us and those teams.

One big difference though, Vancouver is not a hockey market, fans will not show up if the team is in full tank mode, we are a very fickle fan base here. Combine that with the price of tickets here and it would be a recipe for disaster, the last time the team was that bad was the late 90's where there was talk of the team moving. Trust me when I say this market would not make it through a rebuild.

The way that Benning is doing it is the best way, people seem to forget that when Linden and Benning were hired they said right away that moves would be made that people would have issue with, which is what has happened, Benning is building from the goalie out, people don't see that, its a route that works for this market and this team.

We all saw what happened last year when we finished 27th over all and still ended up with the worst possible scenario in terms of draft picks, I really don't want to see that happen again.

The fact we wound up with worst possible scenario in terms of draft picks was a result of management making an honest effort at stocking up the team for a playoff push. With the result we ended up with doesn't that bother you in the slightest?

If you argue that by making the playoffs the front office can justify pricing up the games to $100, the reality is, I can buy tickets for less than $50 right now anyways because no one is buying the message that this is a playoff product.

 

[Randy Randerson]

I'll have to disagree with this. In the modern era, "real rebuilds" (i.e. completely blowing it and starting from scratch) is very risky, and failure stories far outweigh the success stories. There was a time, pre 1995, when 'blowing it up' and stockpiling high picks could be a relatively short recipe to success, but this was during an era when there was far more parity between 'boy' and 'man.'

Once upon a time, talented and skinny 18-20 year old kids could come into the league and immediately start dominating. This was also during a time when team's often had only 2 'good' lines, with the other two lines being below average.

Those days are gone now. Almost all teams have 4 very good lines, and the athleticism and physicality of the game is far greater than it was back then. The leap from 'boy' to 'man' in the current era is a steep one.

For most 'franchise' players, it often takes 2-3 years plus veteran guidance, etc., to really get to that next level. Yes - generational talents such as Crosby, Ovechkin, and McDavid are the exception, but more times than not, it is extremely difficult for a team to

1) "blow it up"
2) Except a bunch of 18-20 year old kids to lead a team surrounded by 'average' vets that have had 'average' careers.

Tampa Bay is probably the closest example of a team that has rebuilt relatively quickly (i.e. From 2004 to 2015), but lest we forget, even Tampa Bay had guys like Lecavlier and St. Louis within the line-up while guys like Stamkos and Hedman were getting their feet wet.

Teams like Chicago, Pittsburgh, and LA have won multiple cups obviously, but how many years did they struggle for? How many other teams have tried to follow that model and have NOT seen their 'tanking' realized? (i.e. Edmonton, Toronto, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Carolina, NYI, Minnesota, Calgary, etc., etc., etc).

There's a reason why over the past 10-15 years, a lot of the same teams that were bottom feeders than, continue to be bottom feeders now.

Florida is just starting to get real good. Are they the ultimate example of how a team should rebuild? Really?

When I say that real rebuilds work, I don't mean that you tank for a year and get Connor McDavid then you're set, I mean that you get your core through the high picks that you get when you bottom out and there's TONS of examples of that throughout the NHL

Its not a year-to-year cycle, probably averages 20 years to return to the same point in the cycle and can be longer if a team drafts well sustainably out of non-top-10 picks. It also takes more than just making good on a few top picks to make a contender, but the draft is the foundation that almost every contender is built on

some of the teams you've cited about "tanking" not working need time, Toronto bottomed out literally last year, Edm was bottom 5, Carolina only starting to climb and still need pieces, Wpg had the best farm in hockey last year: Laine, Ehlers, Connor, Scheifele are going to be a hell of a core of a very good team

Some of the teams you've cited aren't in rebuild mode: Minnesota made the playoffs and are likely going to again, sort of in their hayday of the Suter-Parise core

Islanders are another very good example of a rebuild working - they're building around Tavares who was an asset they got by being bad. Strome, Dal Colle and lots of other high picks

I'm not suggesting that it happens over night or that doing it right automatically means you win a cup, but doing it right means you get to contend at an extremely high percentage, look at most of the most successful NHL franchises and you should see that

And as for the "once upon a time 18-20 year old kids could dominate", have a look at the Calder race - there is an exceptional amount of young talent in the league right now doing just that, and 19 year old Connor McDavid is leading the league in scoring

 

[ginner classic]

Late 80's and early 90's. The latter of which consisted of talks of us moving. Is that evidence enough for you?

Or how about the fact that when the Canucks are out every year, most people in this city couldn't care less about hockey?

First of all...in the early 90's the team drew very, very well. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Pretty sure you don't either.

Vancouver is a hockey market and a big one. There are over 70,000 people in the province involved in minor hockey...currently. There are over a 500,000 people in the province who have played, or volunteered in, the sport at some point in their life.

When I mean provide evidence I mean look up some actual data before making inane posts:

http://www.environicsinstitute.org/...onics-institute-hockey-canada-2012-survey.pdf

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

What didn't work well for Edmonton, but worked well for Pittsburgh, Tampa, Chicago, LA?

While we're on the subject of straying away from models that don't work. Wouldn't you then say the Brian Burke/Dave Nonis era Leafs (who traded away picks to make playoffs) and the Jay Feaster era Flames scare you away just as much from thinking pushing for the playoffs with an aging and underperforming veteran core be just as scary? It scares me as i'm already seeing tons of parallels with us and those teams.



The fact we wound up with worst possible scenario in terms of draft picks was a result of management making an honest effort at stocking up the team for a playoff push. With the result we ended up with doesn't that bother you in the slightest?

If you argue that by making the playoffs the front office can justify pricing up the games to $100, the reality is, I can buy tickets for less than $50 right now anyways because no one is buying the message that this is a playoff product.

And has failed with teams like Carolina, Columbus, Florida for many years,. LA did not rebuild either. Unless having two top 10 picks counts as rebuilding, which last time I checked we have three so there ya go.

I love this comparison too, LOL what 1st rounders have we traded for aging players or one dimensional superstars that couldn't help us now? Shinkaruk? The guy we traded him for is producing for us in the NHL, while he toils away in the AHL still. Mcann? We got a young top 4 which we needed more than anything else. I'll give you that Benning has traded away too many picks, fine, but the most detrimental picks he has given up have been 2nd rounders, which statistically speaking amount to a 3rd liner if your lucky, not exactly detrimental if you ask me.


So management gave us bad luck with their decisions LOL how does that work? The Maple Leafs were getting AM no matter what last year, everybody knows that.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

What didn't work well for Edmonton, but worked well for Pittsburgh, Tampa, Chicago, LA?

While we're on the subject of straying away from models that don't work. Wouldn't you then say the Brian Burke/Dave Nonis era Leafs (who traded away picks to make playoffs) and the Jay Feaster era Flames scare you away just as much from thinking pushing for the playoffs with an aging and underperforming veteran core be just as scary? It scares me as i'm already seeing tons of parallels with us and those teams.



The fact we wound up with worst possible scenario in terms of draft picks was a result of management making an honest effort at stocking up the team for a playoff push. With the result we ended up with doesn't that bother you in the slightest?

If you argue that by making the playoffs the front office can justify pricing up the games to $100, the reality is, I can buy tickets for less than $50 right now anyways because no one is buying the message that this is a playoff product.

How about look at the veteran leadership on those Pens Hawks Bolts and Kings teams.
The Jarret Stoll's Mike Richards Brad Richards Brian Campbell Marty St Louis Matt Greene Bill Guerin Gary Roberts.

Funny enough a few of those guys played for Edmonton or Toronto.

 

[ginner classic]

We are not a sports market here and definitely not a hockey market. We are a market that does well if the team is playing well. We are city full of hipsters and yuppies, these people couldn't care less about sports.

Oh my. You fail to make valid points and back up your claims with generalisations. Ever been to Surrey? Langley? Maple Ridge? Burnaby? North Van?

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

First of all...in the early 90's the team drew very, very well. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Pretty sure you don't either.

Vancouver is a hockey market and a big one. There are over 70,000 people in the province involved in minor hockey...currently. There are over a 500,000 people in the province who have played, or volunteered in, the sport at some point in their life.

When I mean provide evidence I mean look up some actual data before making inane posts:

http://www.environicsinstitute.org/...onics-institute-hockey-canada-2012-survey.pdf

Yah I meant late 90's that was typo. Also never said people don't play sports here we are big on that, but in terms of hockey fans who watch and will pay money to go to games, no we are not, most of the sell outs that happened during that streak were tickets bought by big companies, they have talked about this on the radio plenty of times.

 

[ginner classic]

And has failed with teams like Carolina, Columbus, Florida for many years,. LA did not rebuild either. Unless having two top 10 picks counts as rebuilding, which last time I checked we have three so there ya go.

I love this comparison too, LOL what 1st rounders have we traded for aging players or one dimensional superstars that couldn't help us now? Shinkaruk? The guy we traded him for is producing for us in the NHL, while he toils away in the AHL still. Mcann? We got a young top 4 which we needed more than anything else. I'll give you that Benning has traded away too many picks, fine, but the most detrimental picks he has given up have been 2nd rounders, which statistically speaking amount to a 3rd liner if your lucky, not exactly detrimental if you ask me.


So management gave us bad luck with their decisions LOL how does that work? The Maple Leafs were getting AM no matter what last year, everybody knows that.

Trumpiness?

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Oh my. You fail to make valid points and back up your claims with generalisations. Ever been to Surrey? Langley? Maple Ridge? Burnaby? North Van?

Yah and honestly I feel like the Canucks would do much better if there arena was in the in one of those cities. I was talking about Vancouver specifically.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Trumpiness?

Reality.

 

[ginner classic]

Yah and honestly I feel like the Canucks would do much better if there arena was in the in one of those cities. I was talking about Vancouver specifically.

The Vancouver Canucks draw gate revenue from the entire lower mainland and generate broadcast revenue through the whole province and merchandise sales across the country. The city of Vancouver is 25% of the Lower Mainland in population. Your arguments have massive holes in them not supported by any facts. Really....all I see you doing here is running circles around yourself logically.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

How about look at the veteran leadership on those Pens Hawks Bolts and Kings teams.
The Jarret Stoll's Mike Richards Brad Richards Brian Campbell Marty St Louis Matt Greene Bill Guerin Gary Roberts.

Funny enough a few of those guys played for Edmonton or Toronto.

Exactly. people don't seem to realize this.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

The Vancouver Canucks draw gate revenue from the entire lower mainland and generate broadcast revenue through the whole province and merchandise sales across the country. The city of Vancouver is 25% of the Lower Mainland in population. Your arguments have massive holes in them not supported by any facts. Really....all I see you doing here is running circles around yourself logically.

Ok bud, look at the late 80's and late 90's when this team was absolute garbage and look at how hard it was to get fans to show up. It's exactly what would happen now. That should be proof enough.

You know the late 90's when there was talk of this team moving?

 

[ginner classic]

Ok bud, look at the late 80's and late 90's when this team was absolute garbage and look at how hard it was to get fans to show up. It's exactly what would happen now. That should be proof enough.

No...it's not proof enough. It's crap frankly.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

No...it's not proof enough. It's crap frankly.

More proof, did you go to any of the games during that sell out streak? I went to plenty and saw the absolute lack of anything in the lower bowl, people with laptops doing work, on their cell phones the entire game etc. People that couldn't possibly care less about the game, not even reacting when we scored.


That sell out streak ended and they talked on the radio about how many of those tickets were bought by corporations, and given to clients, now that has ended and so did the sell out streak, isn't that kind of proof that "real" fans will not show up?

 

[Horse McHindu]

When I say that real rebuilds work, I don't mean that you tank for a year and get Connor McDavid then you're set, I mean that you get your core through the high picks that you get when you bottom out and there's TONS of examples of that throughout the .

Where are these examples? Again - I use the Florida example. These guys look like they're going to be awesome this year, and have an excellent collection of young talent, but how long did it take them to get to this stage? 15 years? For guys like you and me, there's no problem with romanticizing the idea of a 'rebuild' and becoming a contender after 'x' number of years, but business owners have to worry about revenues. It's extremely risky to go years on end missing the playoffs.

some of the teams you've cited about "tanking" not working need time, Toronto bottomed out literally last year, Edm was bottom 5, Carolina only starting to climb and still need pieces, Wpg had the best farm in hockey last year: Laine, Ehlers, Connor, Scheifele are going to be a hell of a core of a very good team.

Edmonton hasn't made the playoffs since 2006, while Toronto hasn't won a playoff series since 2002 (and has made the playoffs twice over the past 14 years). Yes - they have good young cores brewing....now.....after all this time, but was it really worth it?

Some of the teams you've cited aren't in rebuild mode: Minnesota made the playoffs and are likely going to again, sort of in their hayday of the Suter-Parise core.

I mention Minnesota because they've attempted to rebuild so many times since 2003, and have missed the playoffs circa 75-80% of the time over the past 13 years. Even in the years that they managed to make the playoffs, they were mediocre at best. That's the point I'm getting at: For every Chicago and LA that are out there (i.e. winning cups after YEARS of struggling), there are far more teams like Minnesota that attempt to rebuild for so many years, but only manage to become average.

Your other example (New York Islanders) also fits that description.

I'm not suggesting that it happens over night or that doing it right automatically means you win a cup, but doing it right means you get to contend at an extremely high percentage, look at most of the most successful NHL franchises and you should see that

It's not a high percentage. That's the point I'm getting at. If you look at all 30 teams in the NHL, and how they've done over the past 10-15 years, you'll see how a large number of teams have attempted rebuilds and have stayed at or near the cellar for very long stretches of time.....without having their poor results pay dividends. Carolina, Edmonton, Calgary, Minnesota, Atlanta/Winnipeg, Florida, Phoenix, St. Louis, Colorado, Ottawa, Toronto, Buffalo, Columbus, Philadelphia, New Jersey, etc.

And as for the "once upon a time 18-20 year old kids could dominate", have a look at the Calder race - there is an exceptional amount of young talent in the league right now doing just that, and 19 year old Connor McDavid is leading the league in scoring

Yes - McDavid is a generational talent, and guys like him come once every 10-15 years or so. McDavid is more than capable of leading an Oilers team. For most other young players however, they need atleast 2-3 years before they are ready to LEAD a team. During their formative years, if said players are not surrounded by exceptional veteran players, then these 'kids' are susceptible to not panning out and/or busting.

That's my entire point. Blowing it up is an extremely risky way to do things.

 

[GoodbyeLuongo]

Look I'm not that high on Jake, but for crying out loud he just turned 20. Look at when other power forwards really started to produce. Give him some time