18/19 MGMT Thread XI. We're totally rebuilding! LalalaIcan'thearyoulalala...!

Status
Not open for further replies.

xtra

Registered User
May 19, 2002
8,323
4,765
Vancouver
Visit site
@Hindustan Smyl

I didn’t want to quote your whole post but I specifically want to address this point:

2) protecting the current young players in your system and placing them into roles that will push them, but not over exert them (which for whatever reason, I believe is a concept that many people struggle with on here).

No one here disagrees that there is value in veterans the arguement is in signing these veterans to 4-6 year deals to provide the same thing that a veteran signed to a 1 year deal that you can move at the deadline for additional picks.

If we signed beagle (or an equivalent player) to a 1 year deal and then flipped them at the deadline like almost every other successful rebuilding team has done there won’t be a single complaint.
 

Addison Rae

Registered User
Jun 2, 2009
58,532
10,753
Vancouver
Having to pay Tanner Pearson and Ryan Spooner ~8 million next year is going to suck, both have been terrible here so far.
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,322
14,549
Having to pay Tanner Pearson and Ryan Spooner ~8 million next year is going to suck, both have been terrible here so far.[/QUOTE

Lol!...well I guess the option was either these two guys, or paying Gagner for another year with Marlies and Gudbranson to be a $4m season seventh d-man playing 12 minutes a night.

That's the trouble when you sign guys to awful contracts in the first place. The only way you can unload them is to acquire bad contracts back. I suspect Spooner will be bought out---something they would have done with Gagner anyway. As for Pearson, who knows? Maybe he moves at the deadline next season?
 

Fire Benning

diaper filled piss baby
Oct 2, 2016
6,970
8,252
Hell
Having to pay Tanner Pearson and Ryan Spooner ~8 million next year is going to suck, both have been terrible here so far.

Hilarious how they doubled down on Gudbranson last year instead of trading him, instead they end up with Pearson who's less of a negative value asset than Gudbranson but negative value nonetheless.
 

Johnny Canucker

Registered User
Jan 4, 2009
17,750
6,116
The Vancouver Canucks “rebuilding moves””

Bieksa for a 2nd
(moved the 2nd in a deal for Brandon Sutter)

Alex Burrows for Jonathan Dahlen
Moved Dahlen for a mediocre prospect

Jason Garrison for a 2nd
Moved the 2nd for Linden Vey

Del Zotto for a 7th
Del Zotto gets traded for a 6th weeks later

Jannik Hansen for Nikolai Goldobin
Goldobin routine healthy scratch.

What a rebuild, wow


When you lay it out like that.... puke.
 

The Silver Fox

Registered User
Mar 14, 2019
12
7
Promising? Could have fooled me.

Gustav Forsling Stats and News



Agreed that Gudbranson was the WRONG player to target, but we had absolutely ZERO on our right side D outside of Tanev. It was Tanev, and then a bunch of 6th and 7th dmen. So - yeah....the Canucks absolutely needed to trade for a young defenseman that could step into a top 4 role. Unfortunately, Gudbranson was NOT the correct answer and that’s on Benning and Pro Scouting. What was crazy at this time, was that posters on here were arguing that we trade Tanev since Tanev’s value was sky high. that is not how a rebuild works.

Rebuilding entails protecting your prospects and young players just as much as it means acquiring picks and prospects.

Young players in our line-up at that time (if I recall correctly) were Horvat, Baertschi, Hutton, Stecher, and Markstrom (I might be wrong here....too lazy to look up). The point is this: IF you completely sabotage your depth (ie trade Tanev for a 1st, and don’t trade for a young RHD), then you risk putting your current young players into positions that they are far too green for. That’s how you damage young players. That’s how you ruin the confidence of young players.

So yeah - while not trading for Gudbranson + trading Chris Tanev would have resulted in more picks today, the fact of the matter is that guys like Hutton, Stecher, Markstrom, [young guy] would have been placed in positions to fail.

It would have been the classic case of trying to fill a leaking bucket with water.

For all the flack that Benning gets on here, one often overlooked fact is that many of our young guys on the team successfully grew their games and were salavaged......despite our multiple losing seasons (which is normal for a rebuilding process). Guys like Horvat, Markstrom, Stecher, Hutton, and Gaudette all have taken solid leaps in their games. Even guys like Baertschi and Virtanen have grown during their time here....maybe not to the extent that we want, but growth nonetheless. What more can I see about Pettersson and Boeser that hasn’t already been said? Leivo looks fairly decent as well.

A rebuild involves two things:

1) Draft pick accumulation (which all of you definitely understand).

2) protecting the current young players in your system and placing them into roles that will push them, but not over exert them (which for whatever reason, I believe is a concept that many people struggle with on here).

You can only do #1 if #2 isn’t effected.

And again - I hate to make this a “but Gillis!” argument, but IF the previous regime had even been remotely competent in assembling a prospect pool, then yes......I believe more vets would have been moved for picks because the young guys within the system would have been able to fill those roles at around 80-90% efficiency of said vet being replaced (which is what one part of rebuilding is about). Unfortunately, we didn’t have that.......and so this regime was forced to trade 2nd’s for 20-23 year old reclamation projects that could perhaps fill those shoes (while simultaneously trying to trade Bieksa, Burrows, Hansen, etc., for some kind of salvageable value).



I won’t deny that our Pro Scouting is terrible. It is. If Benning ends up getting fired, it will be because of moves like this.



Kassian is And was a nice guy but he had his demons. Unfortunately, you don’t want impressionable young players around these types of guys. It sounds cold, but it’s the truth.

Brendan Gaunce wasn’t quite ready for the NHL. If Gaunce at that time was around 85-90% ready, then his presence on the 4th line could have been justified, but he still needed time in the minors.

The Canucks also needed more toughness, and needed someone to take pressure off of Dorsett.

The motivation and thought process behind making this kind of trade was sound. I actually thought Prust would be a good fit here. Unfortunately, things didn’t work out. I’m not even sure If this was a gaffe by Pro Scouting. Up until his stint in Vancouver, Prust was known as a non selfish team first guy. Unfortunately, after his ankle injury here, he couldn’t get back on track......and he acted like a child when he was rightfully benched.

Stellar post. Agree with everything here except the part about 4th and 5th round picks for Pouliot and Larsen being examples of bad pro scouting or reasons why Benning would be fired. A 4th/5th is basically the definition minimal trade value. The fact that we only had to pay minimal value for them meant nobody expected them to be great players. Built into those trades were the notion that “yes these players have had significant flaws in their games but we think we have a chance to help the player grow beyond his flaws.”

What matters about pro-scouting is identifying upside more than downsides because a confident coaching staff will look at the downsides and say “I can work with him and have a chance to fix that”

And the upside in Larsen was undeniable. He was a good puck mover, just too weak and small. Give him a few inches and 20 pounds and he’s an NHL regular today.

Pouliot, for all his mistakes, had undeniable offensive talent when he possesss the confidence to show it.

Circling back, I find it utterly ridiculous that 4th and 5th round picks are defining some people’s opinion of Benning. No one should care about them. They represent a minuscule chance at ever getting an NHL player.
Very disappointed.

Canucks have stooped to an all time low :facepalm:

Can't even paper their own players !
 
  • Like
Reactions: y2kcanucks

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,073
4,470
Vancouver
I've said for awhile, the players that come most of the way developed do fine here, college players, Pettersson, Tryamkin and the like.

Prospects that we have to put effort into developing don't seem to make the grade. Horvat of course being the exception, our young players seem to fizzle rather than sizzle.

Bad picks? I don't think all of them were. Going back to Gillis, Hodgson, Schroeder, Jensen, even further out prospects like Shirokov all showed tonnes of potential and then....didn't. Schneider, a Nonis acquisition, was our exception then.

Now we have Virtanen, Juolevi, Dahlen, McCann, Shinkaruk, Subban, and who knows how many other common now, but future hard trivia answers later names will we add? Bad picks, bad development, both or something else?

Thank the hockey gods for Pettersson and Hughes though. Both are coming to us largely....seasoned...compared to other prospects we've rushed in. Lots of meaningful games played.

That and the sleep/travel quagmire get me furious thinking about how some of this was already supposed to have been dealt with before Benning even got here. It's like invading a capital, and ripping up the undamaged infrastructure because the previous regime installed it, even though it was working beautifully!

I mean player development might be the equivilant of a water system made out of paper mache, but at least use blue prints for how it could be laid out!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mossey3535

Hit the post

I have your gold medal Zippy!
Oct 1, 2015
22,337
14,125
Hiding under WTG's bed...
Well I wouldn't put Hughes in the same category as EP yet (seeing as he hasn't played a single game at the professional level - whether it be AHL or NHL or whatever).

At least he won't have a slug of a partner like Guds. That's a positive step.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cogburn and Pavel96

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,073
4,470
Vancouver
Well I wouldn't put Hughes in the same category as EP yet (seeing as he hasn't played a single game at the professional level - whether it be AHL or NHL or whatever).

At least he won't have a slug of a partner like Guds. That's a positive step.

We haven't had a reason to doubt his potential or talent yet is more what I was getting at.

I hope he is a game breaker right away, but I'm not going to hold it against him if he's not that.

But yes, I agree. I don't know that Biega or Stetcher will be ideal, but they both beat the snot out of Gud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hit the post

Addison Rae

Registered User
Jun 2, 2009
58,532
10,753
Vancouver
For me ideally the organization brings in a steady top 4 RHD next year, would love to bring in Stralman who I think is criminally underrated.

It gives you this

Edler / Stralman

Veteran unit that can go up against other teams best players, allows Hughes to be sheltered. Will help the team win games despite age, great "mentors".

Hutton / Tanev

Giving Hutton the safety blanket of Tanev, lower Tanev's workload and try to maximize him as an asset and someone you can move mid season for a 1st round pick.

Hughes / Stetcher

Give this unit a plethora of offensive zone starts, allow them to play with Pettersson in the offensive zone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mossey3535

Bubbles

Die Hard for Bedard 2023
Apr 16, 2004
8,523
7,786
BC Teams:Nucks,Juve
I've said for awhile, the players that come most of the way developed do fine here, college players, Pettersson, Tryamkin and the like.

Prospects that we have to put effort into developing don't seem to make the grade. Horvat of course being the exception, our young players seem to fizzle rather than sizzle.

Bad picks? I don't think all of them were. Going back to Gillis, Hodgson, Schroeder, Jensen, even further out prospects like Shirokov all showed tonnes of potential and then....didn't. Schneider, a Nonis acquisition, was our exception then.

Now we have Virtanen, Juolevi, Dahlen, McCann, Shinkaruk, Subban, and who knows how many other common now, but future hard trivia answers later names will we add? Bad picks, bad development, both or something else?

Thank the hockey gods for Pettersson and Hughes though. Both are coming to us largely....seasoned...compared to other prospects we've rushed in. Lots of meaningful games played.

You know what's not a coincidence? Pettersson, Boeser, Horvat and Tryamkin did not spend any time in the AHL. Maybe they were all good enough to need any seasoning.

Virtanen should have stayed in the AHL for a bit longer, he was definitely rushed.

McCann was also rushed, but didn't get a chance to prove himself before he was traded.

Dahlen, well we will never know.

Shinkaruk I always thought would do something but I think injuries really slowed down his development.

Subban was always a C level prospect.

The Canucks have traditionally pretty poor in developing prospects in the AHL. It's been almost 10 years since the days of Bieksa/Burrows/Edler...I'm talking about lower drafted prospects that turned into a legit NHLer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cogburn

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,073
4,470
Vancouver
The Canucks have traditionally pretty poor in developing prospects in the AHL. It's been almost 10 years since the days of Bieksa/Burrows/Edler...I'm talking about lower drafted prospects that turned into a legit NHLer.

Well Gaudette was a fifth round pick, so was Hutton...I'm not entirely willing to write them off yet.

The rest I'm with you with.
 

Hit the post

I have your gold medal Zippy!
Oct 1, 2015
22,337
14,125
Hiding under WTG's bed...
The Canucks have traditionally pretty poor in developing prospects in the AHL. It's been almost 10 years since the days of Bieksa/Burrows/Edler...I'm talking about lower drafted prospects that turned into a legit NHLer.
Goalie development seems a source of strength. Even a “failure” like Lack didn’t fall off a cliff until another team mucked around with his fundamentals. Gives us hope for Demko.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mossey3535

Bubbles

Die Hard for Bedard 2023
Apr 16, 2004
8,523
7,786
BC Teams:Nucks,Juve
Well Gaudette was a fifth round pick, so was Hutton...I'm not entirely willing to write them off yet.

The rest I'm with you with.

Yes, Gaudette was an exception (although you can argue he would have stuck on the team if there wasn't so many damn overpaid vets).

Hutton spent 4 games in Utica. I was pretty shocked actually, he developed in the NHL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cogburn

passive voice

Registered User
Jun 16, 2009
2,532
446
Hilarious how they doubled down on Gudbranson last year instead of trading him, instead they end up with Pearson who's less of a negative value asset than Gudbranson but negative value nonetheless.
Just gotta marginally win a few more deadline deals and we’ll have that baby up to the value of the fourth-rounder they should have got for him 13 months ago!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad