Is the "Retool" or "Rebuild on the Fly" Over?

Jack Burton

Pro Tank Since 13
Oct 27, 2016
4,961
2,937
Pork Chop Express
They never invested in futures or put any effort in to actually rebuilding the team.

They spent the draft picks NHL gives teams for doing poorly and drafted a couple of really good players with those picks.


I guess the "building" is now over. What they built is a clunker...
No futures son.

This regime has done nothing but insure we never have anything.
 

DarrenX

Registered User
Apr 15, 2014
618
627
I think it's over.

This franchise is going to go all in.

Umm, they already did? What do they have left to go "all in" with?

(that may have been your point, and you were just being sarcastic. I can't tell anymore).
 

tyhee

Registered User
Feb 5, 2015
2,535
2,612
Umm, they already did? What do they have left to go "all in" with?

....

A team going all-in generally trades futures, that is picks and prospects, for present help.

Sort of, ya know, like trading 1st and 3rd round picks for a 26 year old forward.

Or trading a prospect who was a recent 1st round pick together with a 2nd round pick and a 4th/5th round pick upgrade for a defenceman who had played the 300+ games required to figure things out.

Or trading a 2nd line centre, a 2nd/3rd round pick upgrade and a prospect for a 26 year old foundational 3rd line center.

To be more serious I agree with your point that there's not a lot more they can do to go all-in right now. They don't have the cap space to take on more immediate help. If they clear some cap room, look out-there are still some picks and prospects available to trade. Enough pick upgrades given for immediate help and we could have a future draft entirely made up of 7th round picks. [Ok, I got serious for a moment but couldn't maintain it for long.]
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
26,995
6,571
Not every rebuild equals scorched earth.


By any known precedent, a traditional rebuild liquidates assets for futures. That can be called "scorched earth". As in, the present product takes a complete back seat to the future product.

A rebuild on the fly, or a retool, is not a traditional rebuild.

This semantic debate always happens when the term "rebuild on the fly" is used in the place of the word "retool". It creates confusion. Again, by any known precedent, by the term used by media, fans and hockey people, Benning did not rebuild. He retooled.


It’s not that it can’t work, it just hasn’t been a definitive best way of working.

In our cup finals team, 9 players on the roster were drafted by the Canucks: Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Burrows, Edler, Bieksa, Hansen, Raymond and Schneider. So that’s 3 x 1st line players, a 2nd line player, a top pairing defensemen, a middle pairing defensemen, 2 x 3rd liners, and a back up goalie.

Can we extract a similar core from Pettersson, Boeser, Horvat, Virtanen, Podkolzin, Hughes, Juolevi, Woo, Gaudette, Demko, and others? If so, we might be okay. Keep in mind it took about 5 years to build a true contender from the point the Sedins started to look worth building around. Is this the right base to add to?


Sure it can work, DET did it with Datsyuk and Zetterberg. The issue has always been: How does it _best_ work? That's where the definition of a rebuild becomes more grounded: It best works when you liquidate assets to procure future assets in order to grow the _best_ possible future core. Not just future core, but the best possible future core.

That's what prevents this from being categorized as a rebuild.
 
Last edited:

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,043
14,073
Until the contracts for Eriksson, Beagle and Sutter finally come off the books; no, the 'retool on the fly' is alive and well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Megaterio Llamas

Megaterio Llamas

el rey del mambo
Oct 29, 2011
11,219
5,929
North Shore
In the immortal words of Trevor Linden "it's whatever you guys want to call it".

That's should be regarded as the definitive description of what it is/was as far as I'm concerned. It says everything while trying to say nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisfortuneCookie

logan5

Registered User
May 24, 2011
5,953
4,135
Vancouver - Mt. Pleasant
Things have to work out very well for that to be the case. Ownership and management are gambling on some long shots right now. Pettersson has to prove he has the durability to play a full season... Miller and Myers have to justify their costs... Hughes and some other young defensemen, like Juolevi or Woo, have to assume the importance of Tanev and Elder... Demko has to stay healthy. That's a lot to go right... and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

My guess is that this will prove to be a false start and that it will take at least 3-5 years of competent management and meddle free ownership right this ship and to get us out of the re-build/re-tool phase.

What needs to change? Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes, Horvat are not the right personnel to build a team around? I can tell you that this is the most talented core of young talent I have ever seen on the Canucks. At some point you have to start building a supporting cast, unless you want to go the route of the Oilers and start a brand new rebuild right after a previous 6 year rebuild.

Serious question though, what changes would make if you are the new GM of the Canucks.
 

David Bruce Banner

Nude Cabdriver Ban
Mar 25, 2008
7,946
3,217
Streets Ahead
What needs to change? Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes, Horvat are not the right personnel to build a team around? I can tell you that this is the most talented core of young talent I have ever seen on the Canucks. At some point you have to start building a supporting cast, unless you want to go the route of the Oilers and start a brand new rebuild right after a previous 6 year rebuild.

Serious question though, what changes would make if you are the new GM of the Canucks.

Well, the current regime has handcuffed any new management going forward. Eriksson’s contract is unmovable. Sutter’s and Beagle’s aren’t much better. If there were some way of jettisoning those contracts without moving additional players or picks, that would be job #1. Lots of other jobs after that.

If I were the new GM, the first thing I’d invest in would be a time machine.
 

racerjoe

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
12,154
5,850
Vancouver
What needs to change? Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes, Horvat are not the right personnel to build a team around? I can tell you that this is the most talented core of young talent I have ever seen on the Canucks. At some point you have to start building a supporting cast, unless you want to go the route of the Oilers and start a brand new rebuild right after a previous 6 year rebuild.

Serious question though, what changes would make if you are the new GM of the Canucks.


I really like the young guys, I really do, but can we stop with some of this? We just had a core that had a NHL MVP, Selke award winner, a Vezina quality goalie. That team will have multiple Hall of famers on it. We would be more than blessed to see that again in our life time.

I honestly don't think we have enough young pieces yet and don't think we will with the way this team has been constructed, we will probably waste Horvats prime, and may eat up into BB and Peterson.
 

logan5

Registered User
May 24, 2011
5,953
4,135
Vancouver - Mt. Pleasant
I really like the young guys, I really do, but can we stop with some of this? We just had a core that had a NHL MVP, Selke award winner, a Vezina quality goalie. That team will have multiple Hall of famers on it. We would be more than blessed to see that again in our life time.

I honestly don't think we have enough young pieces yet and don't think we will with the way this team has been constructed, we will probably waste Horvats prime, and may eat up into BB and Peterson.

What should we be doing then, going for more another top 3 or 5 pick? With the way the salary cap is structured, you hit the saturation point on top end talent fairly quickly. For example, if we get another Pettersson, or even Boeser level player in the draft, we won't have enough cap space to keep everyone. Somebody's gonna have to go, so it seems pointless gathering more elite players. Time to build the supporting cast.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
What should we be doing then, going for more another top 3 or 5 pick? With the way the salary cap is structured, you hit the saturation point on top end talent fairly quickly. For example, if we get another Pettersson, or even Boeser level player in the draft, we won't have enough cap space to keep everyone. Somebody's gonna have to go, so it seems pointless gathering more elite players. Time to build the supporting cast.
This type of stuff is maniacal.

Too many good players is bad now?

This is the constant excuse for a team who's been one of the worst over 4 seasons trading first round picks. It's an excuse, it's not a rationale.

You know what a wise person would say if they added another Pettersson level player at the top of the draft? Great, lets start clearing the cap space we'll need in 3 years now. The idea that being content with a JT Miller (good player) but wouldn't another Pettersson is effin' ridiculous to me. Pettersson even at max bonuses makes Tanner Pearson money for the first 3 years of his career (that's insanely valuable and should be even more to a team like the Canucks looking at what they're going to have to pay EP and Hughes in short order....it's essentially an $8m + caphit player for less than half price)...even if the kid isn't a Pettersson or Boeser and is a slower build like Bo or even JT Miller, having that kid on an ELC while you're paying Pettersson his upcoming monster 2nd contract, seems to me like a much smarter plan to have a long term contender.

This org's goal isn't long term contender, it's playoffs this year.
 
Last edited:

Hoghandler

Registered User
Jul 9, 2019
1,921
930
This org's goal isn't long term contender, it's playoffs this year.

Why only this year? All 5 additions to the team are multi-year contracts.

Looks to me like the goal is to push for the playoffs this year, as well as the following handful of years afterwards.
 

GetFocht

Indestructible
Jun 11, 2013
9,077
4,373
Why only this year? All 5 additions to the team are multi-year contracts.

Looks to me like the goal is to push for the playoffs this year, as well as the following handful of years afterwards.

on top of that Ferland and Miller are young enough players that can still hit peak seasons.
 

racerjoe

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
12,154
5,850
Vancouver
What should we be doing then, going for more another top 3 or 5 pick? With the way the salary cap is structured, you hit the saturation point on top end talent fairly quickly. For example, if we get another Pettersson, or even Boeser level player in the draft, we won't have enough cap space to keep everyone. Somebody's gonna have to go, so it seems pointless gathering more elite players. Time to build the supporting cast.


Well for starters I would be looking to lose the dead weight contracts we have... though I would not have signed any of those anyway.

You can't have too many good players, when the cap becomes an issue you trade some of the good players on bigger deals for younger prospects and depth and try to "reload".

Then a lot of what @420Canuck said.
 

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,068
4,467
Vancouver
I don't think that this team was ever "rebuilding" or even "retooling".

It's too late now though, we have young talent, and if we try to restart now, were just pissing away talent.

We've actively traded futures for "now" players in the recent past, and now, but now the pieces going out are conditional on some measurable success.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
I don't think that this team was ever "rebuilding" or even "retooling".

It's too late now though, we have young talent, and if we try to restart now, were just pissing away talent.

We've actively traded futures for "now" players in the recent past, and now, but now the pieces going out are conditional on some measurable success.

This is just a mess. And Edmonton like mess. Jim Benning has set this team back another generation.
 

TraderJim

Um.. like.. you know
Apr 18, 2006
1,103
1,499
For example, if we get another Pettersson, or even Boeser level player in the draft, we won't have enough cap space to keep everyone. Somebody's gonna have to go, so it seems pointless gathering more elite players. Time to build the supporting cast.
Come the f*** on. This is a ridiculous take. Absolutely ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SillyRabbit

logan5

Registered User
May 24, 2011
5,953
4,135
Vancouver - Mt. Pleasant
It’s like when people think it’s better to make less money so as not to cross into the next tax bracket.

Except we can't cross into the next tax bracket. If we get another elite player, we are going to have to sacrifice some depth to accommodate that elite level salary. You have to have a balanced line-up, and the salary cap makes that tricky.
 

logan5

Registered User
May 24, 2011
5,953
4,135
Vancouver - Mt. Pleasant
Come the **** on. This is a ridiculous take. Absolutely ridiculous.

Care to expand on that. How are we going to fit all these big salaries under the cap? Even when we drop our dead weight players like Loui and Sutter, that cap space will quickly be filled by Pettersson and Hughes. Then what, we have a terrible 3rd and 4th line so we can accommodate another top end player?
 

timw33

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 18, 2007
25,709
19,425
Victoria
Except we can't cross into the next tax bracket. If we get another elite player, we are going to have to sacrifice some depth to accommodate that elite level salary. You have to have a balanced line-up, and the salary cap makes that tricky.

Oh no we might have to trade some of our EXCESS elite talent for an elite package of picks and futures!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jyrki21

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->