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

[rypper]

Tkachuk-Horvat-Boeser
Sedin-Sedin-Nylander


With that top 6 you are not going to be picking at the top of the draft, or finishing as one of the worst teams in the league....(Pettersson and Hughes..forget it)..Also, don't forget..every time you inevitably lose the lottery ..you drop back two spots..

You can write up a fantasy /all star team for every other team in the league if you like..If only they drafted this guy, or traded that pick...etc.....Its crystal ball stuff..

After some thought..don't stop....carry on by all means.

After playing horvat as his 4th line center in his first season, what makes you think WD would use Tkachuk as a first line player in his?

And Boeser didn't play until the end of the year so his being on the roster likely doesn't factor into where we finish the year and picking Pettersson.

 

[rypper]

Not trying to defend him right now, but it was rumored that he actually to rebuild but was turned down by owner ship. Mike Gillis wanted to rebuild and was

I've never read or heard that rumor anywhere. I'd be interested in that though where'd you hear/ read it?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

After playing horvat as his 4th line center in his first season, what makes you think WD would use Tkachuk as a first line player in his?

And Boeser didn't play until the end of the year so his being on the roster likely doesn't factor into where we finish the year and picking Pettersson.

Horvat was decent as a rookie, but Tkachuk had 35 assists in his rookie season...Who knows what WD would have done?..Nylander had 61 points in 2016-17....Different teams ..different coaches...We could go on forever about coulda,woulda,shoulda ..fantasy scenarios..Its a pointless exercise.

 

[rypper]

Horvat was decent as a rookie, but Tkachuk had 35 assists in his rookie season

Tkachuk likely wouldn't have had the opportunity to get 35 assists under WD, that's the point. Tkachuk likely wouldn't have made enough of an impact to change the team's fortunes.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Tkachuk likely wouldn't have had the opportunity to get 35 assists under WD, that's the point. Tkachuk likely wouldn't have made enough of an impact to change the team's fortunes.

Likely is the key word (you used it twice)...Tkachuk and Nylander together (in the top 6 with Horvat and the Sedins) would have made enough of an impact to make us not finish 28th (in a then 30 team league)..

 

[bandwagonesque]

Tkachuk likely wouldn't have had the opportunity to get 35 assists under WD, that's the point. Tkachuk likely wouldn't have made enough of an impact to change the team's fortunes.

I think it's fairly obvious Tkachuk would have played in anyone's top 6. He was ready, and he was a focal point of the opposition immediately. Bo Horvat was neither, and he got about the ice time he deserved.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Likely is the key word (you used it twice)...Tkachuk and Nylander together (in the top 6 with Horvat and the Sedins) would have made enough of an impact to make us not finish 28th (in a then 30 team league)..

You can't hold all other things equal when making those additions.

Further, the Canucks chose to keep Boeser, Juolevi, Pettersson, Hughes and now Podkolzin in their respective leagues during their D+1 season. What makes you think they would have graduated Tkachuk based upon that tendency?

 

[Bleach Clean]

is this all you can talk about? I'm not a fan of Benning either but your nonsense is unreal.

wether people like him or not, there were some factors in Benning's job. Not trying to defend him right now, but it was rumored that he actually to rebuild but was turned down by owner ship. Mike Gillis wanted to rebuild and was turned down, Benning wanted to, so do we at least see a pattern here? It's that ownership is instruction his employees either wise even, at the expert advice of his employees, which was Mike Gillis and Jim Benning.

What does this have to do with assessing whether or not the current rebuild/retool is over now?

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

After playing horvat as his 4th line center in his first season, what makes you think WD would use Tkachuk as a first line player in his?

And Boeser didn't play until the end of the year so his being on the roster likely doesn't factor into where we finish the year and picking Pettersson.

Not to mention that Tkachuk was a 48 point player in his rookie season on a much better Calgary roster, so to suggest that he would be a reason why we would miss out on Pettersson (while Vegas would have drafted Glass regardless) is just a dumb and lazy argument.

 

[bandwagonesque]

You can't hold all other things equal when making those additions.

Further, the Canucks chose to keep Boeser, Juolevi, Pettersson, Hughes and now Podkolzin in their respective leagues during their D+1 season. What makes you think they would have graduated Tkachuk based upon that tendency?

Because for various reasons those players were generally agreed to be unprepared for the NHL whereas it was immediately clear Tkachuk was likely physically and mentally prepared, his coaches and teammates said so, he began to dominate physically and offensively toward the end of the preseason, and had a stretch of 6 points in 7 games in the season's first month. You know this as well as any of us.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Not to mention that Tkachuk was a 48 point player in his rookie season on a much better Calgary roster, so to suggest that he would be a reason why we would miss out on Pettersson (while Vegas would have drafted Glass regardless) is just a dumb and lazy argument.

48 points was comfortably second-line production in 2016. Had the Canucks finished four points higher in the standings they'd have leapt four spots higher in the lottery order and would almost certainly not have drafted Pettersson. I don't think this excuses any mistakes Benning made earlier, but nevertheless the position you're taking is obviously indefensible.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Because for various reasons those players were generally agreed to be unprepared for the NHL whereas it was immediately clear Tkachuk was likely physically and mentally prepared, his coaches and teammates said so, he began to dominate physically and offensively toward the end of the preseason, and had a stretch of 6 points in 7 games in the season's first month. You know this as well as any of us.

I also know that McCann had a hot camp, and that the Virtanen/McCann early graduation fiasco was a hot media topic in Vancouver. Since then, the Canucks haven't immediately graduated a 1st rounder. Hmmm... Coincidental?

And I seem to recall that Linden and Benning had opposing views on the Hughes D+1 graduation... Did Benning go against the “general agreement”?

Last, you really need to move away from terms like "generally agreed" and "immediately clear" as if you speak for the consensus collective mindset, which includes coaches and teammates. It actually hurts your argument more than you think it helps.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

48 points was comfortably second-line production in 2016. Had the Canucks finished four points higher in the standings they'd have leapt four spots higher in the lottery order and would almost certainly not have drafted Pettersson. I don't think this excuses any mistakes Benning made earlier, but nevertheless the position you're taking is obviously indefensible.

If we're going to play "what ifs" then we have no idea how the team would do if we didn't have players like Sutter that stepped it up during garbage time and boosted the Canucks in the last 10-15 games or so. The whole exercise is pointless and speculation. My original premise was a hands-off approach on what we could have had if we just stayed the course.

 

[vanuck]

Of all 14 million possible futures...

Only 1 of them ends in us winning (i.e drafting Petterson).

Does this sound about right?

 

[DarrenX]

If we're going to play "what ifs" then we have no idea how the team would do if we didn't have players like Sutter that stepped it up during garbage time and boosted the Canucks in the last 10-15 games or so. The whole exercise is pointless and speculation. My original premise was a hands-off approach on what we could have had if we just stayed the course.

Yes, but you *were* playing 'what if' when you posted your original roster. You can't just change some factors and ignore what they would likely do to the team.

I hate Benning as much as the next guy, but there is no universe where we "could have had" all of Nylander, Tkachuk, and Pettersson, unless you want to specify some draft lottery wins in there too, or you want to argue for some unaccountable reason that 100+ points of offence from the first two wouldn't have been in our lineup in 2016/17 because "Willy D is dumb and hates young players."

 

[RandV]

Yes, but you *were* playing 'what if' when you posted your original roster. You can't just change some factors and ignore what they would likely do to the team.

I hate Benning as much as the next guy, but there is no universe where we "could have had" all of Nylander, Tkachuk, and Pettersson, unless you want to specify some draft lottery wins in there too, or you want to argue for some unaccountable reason that 100+ points of offence from the first two wouldn't have been in our lineup in 2016/17 because "Willy D is dumb and hates young players."

Of course it's impossible to say the effects making changes here or there could have on the current roster, and sometimes poor singular decisions can lead to great results and vice versa. But you're placing some major home town bias on Pettersson here. He's amazing but he's not a generational talent like McDavid here, and it's not like landing him was the singular deciding factor on whether we can compete for a Cup in the next 10 years.

Like lets take a hopelessly optimistic revisionist past. We trade Kesler at the deadline for both of Anaheim's 1sts, and move into a rebuild rather than aiming for the playoffs in 2014-15. With our collection of 2014 picks we draft Nylander+Larkin+Pastrnak, one of Provorov/Weresnki/Barzal in 2015, McAvoy/Chychrun in 2016, and that's the end of our high picks. At this point would it really matter not having Pettersson/Boeser/Hughes and for the sake of it lets even add in Tkachuk?

 

[Bankerguy]

The Canucks have too many forwards
This is a good thing no? gives us options
Assuming healthy and signed
I think the GM hasnt done that bad a job.

Id say the retool is over and its time to try to compete

Ferland Petey Boeser
Pearson Horvat Miller
Baertschi Gaudette Virtanen

Then you have the following players to make a 4th line
Goldobin, Roussel, Sutter, Eriksson, Beagle, Leivo, Motte, Schaller

Roussel Sutter Eriksson might be the safest bet there with Beagle as your 13th forward.
..and if you can ditch Eriksson then Leivo steps up

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Of course it's impossible to say the effects making changes here or there could have on the current roster, and sometimes poor singular decisions can lead to great results and vice versa. But you're placing some major home town bias on Pettersson here. He's amazing but he's not a generational talent like McDavid here, and it's not like landing him was the singular deciding factor on whether we can compete for a Cup in the next 10 years.

Like lets take a hopelessly optimistic revisionist past. We trade Kesler at the deadline for both of Anaheim's 1sts, and move into a rebuild rather than aiming for the playoffs in 2014-15. With our collection of 2014 picks we draft Nylander+Larkin+Pastrnak, one of Provorov/Weresnki/Barzal in 2015, McAvoy/Chychrun in 2016, and that's the end of our high picks. At this point would it really matter not having Pettersson/Boeser/Hughes and for the sake of it lets even add in Tkachuk?

Hopelessly optimistic looks about right...not even mentioning the fantasy of somehow picking the top 3 players in the 2014 draft.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Hopelessly optimistic looks about right...not even mentioning the fantasy of somehow picking the top 3 players in the 2014 draft.

Those are not the top3 players of the 2014 draft. Not even with the restriction of draft position.