Proof Benning Is Not Rebuilding, Just Failing

[Peter10]

actually people have done that over and over with examples, but you just disagree with them and then pretend there are no examples. you also make the dumb argument that unless someone defending benning (not -"pro-benning") provides a long list they cannot have any argument. well ok, how about a list then? i don't recall you posting a a list so i'll go first and then you follow.

so to use your words, the test is list benning's "moves consistent with a rebuild"? read those words carefully before you say a single word in response. in response i expect your list of "moves inconsistent with a rebuild". i will be after you for it, especially your list of moves this year.

on those words, i will take the bait knowing this will inevitably devolve into you disputing whether a particular move was a rebuild as an absolutist fact rather than just disagreeing. we both know that the dispute will truly come down to our opinions, and you will not respect mine and will use a lot of obnoxious rhetorical devices to suggest mine are laughable or whatever stupid disrespectful thing you will say or hot take tangent you will go off on to overstate or hide the weaknesses of your arguments. we also know there are 8-10 other posters who will pile on here insulting and attacking my opinions in 300 different directions and there is no way i will respond to all of them. in spite of that, i'll do it, because the result will be instructive of what happens here when people go the extra mile as some demand.

in offering the list i will not bother listing draft choices since obviously all of them are consistent with a rebuild, and benning has acquired relatively few extra picks . i will also ignore listing the mysterious mini-tanks late every year since we can debate ad infinitum whether they were deliberate other than the first two when willie d howled about it.

i will be most detailed about this season:

1. this season

-he made zero win now moves over the summer. no team assets (including ufa opportunities) were used for anything but development purposes.
-he signed beagle, schaller and roussel to "firm up the room" expecting a long difficult bad season
-no discernable player moves this season have favoured vets or winning now.
-he has let green sit veterans and recent signings, and arguably you can infer told him to favour development over vets unless the differences were large. at minimum, multiple personnel moves have involved veterans sitting for kids when they could have played the vet and sitting was going to create controversy and make management and the vet look bad (gagner, mdz, schaller)
-he signed boucher on a generous 2 way as ahl depth
-he banished gagner to marlies island to free up a big team roster spot for development even at the cost of a major team distraction and controversy of burying a $3million veteran who was arguably playing within expectations at camp.
-mdz got traded for the same reason gagner was banished, even though he was a veteran and potentially useful depth for the canucks in a playoff hunt they were in.
-he traded nilsson to create room to bring demko up
-every asset he has taken back in a move this year has been either young enough to support the canucks' emerging core or an ahl asset.
-he made no win now moves at the tdl even though the team was closer than they have been in years

2. last season

-he made no win now or big signings over the summer. he signed supporting pieces.
-he gambled on pouliot
-he gambled on motte
-he gambled on burmistrov
-he gambled on leipsic
-after signing weircioch to a one way he buried him all season and called up kids instead.
-he tied up horvat for 6 years on a good contract
-he signed gaudette and burned a contract year to get him on the roster

3. previous season
-the team win now moves were ufa only
-he gambled on acquiring 24 year old gudbranson to become a top dman/leader
-he moved burrows and hansen for goldobin and dahlen

4. previous season
-he gambled on granlund
-he gambled on etem
-he moved lack and bieksa for picks

5. previous season
-moved garrison for a pick
-he gambled on pedan
-he gambled on vey
-he gambled on baertschi
-he gambled on clendenning

note that he definitely didn't acquire picks at a prolific rate and, especially early, he moved picks on gambles that, while team development moves, were a case of moving development assets for older/riper development assets. to me that doesn't mean they weren't development moves, but i know some here will argue dogmatically that they were. whatever.

i have also left a few borderline moves here because it is not worth the debate (i think the kesler trade favoured getting younger over quality of return, and i think the sutter trade was intended to support a new core rather than the sedins) in the sense it will be nothing but a shouting match.

I do have to agree that he didnt make any front line "playoff push" moves this year although some like the Beagle signing could be considered to help in that regard. Yet, pretty much none of the moves resemble anything related to an actual rebuild. All he is doing lately are lateral moves (Gagner for Spooner) but nothing to help the future. What if (just speculating) Benning hasnt done those compete moves because a) the top guys dont want to sign to play a franchise without a vision and b) he lacks tradable assets to make a move? Lets be honest here, the only guys that have rather significant trade value are Pettersson, Horvat, Boeser and Markstrom but he cant deal either because that are actual the players saving his job right now.

Maybe y2kcanucks cant provide a list of pro-playoff moves because Benning has been gun-shy lately and maybe Paster cant provide a list of rebuild moves because there werent any. Both can be true at the same time

 

[timw33]

Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong, if I gamble on 10 age gap players, I should maybe get at least one actually good NHL player who will part of the long term future of the franchise out of it?

 

[y2kcanucks]

i will be most detailed about this season:

1. this season

-he made zero win now moves over the summer. no team assets (including ufa opportunities) were used for anything but development purposes.
-he signed beagle, schaller and roussel to "firm up the room" expecting a long difficult bad season
-no discernable player moves this season have favoured vets or winning now.
-he has let green sit veterans and recent signings, and arguably you can infer told him to favour development over vets unless the differences were large. at minimum, multiple personnel moves have involved veterans sitting for kids when they could have played the vet and sitting was going to create controversy and make management and the vet look bad (gagner, mdz, schaller)
-he signed boucher on a generous 2 way as ahl depth
-he banished gagner to marlies island to free up a big team roster spot for development even at the cost of a major team distraction and controversy of burying a $3million veteran who was arguably playing within expectations at camp.
-mdz got traded for the same reason gagner was banished, even though he was a veteran and potentially useful depth for the canucks in a playoff hunt they were in.
-he traded nilsson to create room to bring demko up
-every asset he has taken back in a move this year has been either young enough to support the canucks' emerging core or an ahl asset.
-he made no win now moves at the tdl even though the team was closer than they have been in years

Except he did make win now moves this summer. Giving out those bloated, long-term contracts to Beagle and Roussel are win-now moves.

Rebuilding teams don't lock up aging veterans long-term like that. Because rebuilding teams value cap space, and value their internal salary structure. Are you saying if Tampa would have signed Jay Beagle that they would have been rebuilding?

Benning doesn't coach, so I'm not sure why you're giving him credit for Green's lineup decisions.

Not sure how signing Reid Boucher is a rebuild move. Are you saying that every team that signs AHLers in their mid-20's is rebuilding?

Okay, so Benning waived Gagner. He later traded him for Ryan Spooner (who cleared waivers) who is on the roster. How is that ar ebuild move?


You're essentially arguing that the veterans Benning signed the previous season, who were all junk, being dumped from the team is a sign they are rebuilding. I could just as easily argue that Benning replaced Gagner with the older Antoine Roussel in the lineup.

Benning made no rebuild move as the trade deadline either. Instead of targeting draft picks and trading away pending UFA's, he's looking to re-sign said pending UFA and targeted a current roster player for Gudbranson.

I still see no evidence of a rebuild here. All you're doing is describing what Benning has done. He's gotten rid of bad players. That's not a rebuild, I think every team looks to get rid of bad players. He didn't trade away draft picks. Okay (except he did, but I'm not going to quibble over a 7th round pick outside of laughing at how he bungled that whole situation). And you're saying signing a 29 and 33 year old is somehow a rebuild move. I guess every team that signs old players is rebuilding?

Do you seriously think what you're saying makes sense or has any validity at all?

2. last season

-he made no win now or big signings over the summer. he signed supporting pieces.
-he gambled on pouliot
-he gambled on motte
-he gambled on burmistrov
-he gambled on leipsic
-after signing weircioch to a one way he buried him all season and called up kids instead.
-he tied up horvat for 6 years on a good contract
-he signed gaudette and burned a contract year to get him on the roster

Benning didn't have much cap space, but the cap space he had he used on signing veterans.

He traded away a draft pick, and didn't bother to acquire any, thus going into the 2017 draft with a pick deficit.

What kids did Benning call up for Wiercioch? He didn't call up any kids. He traded away a draft pick for Pouliot. That's not a rebuild move.

Gambled on Motte? Uh that's not rebuilding. Benning neglected to acquire any draft picks, instead targeting older prospects because he doesn't want to rebuild and instead wants to win sooner than later.

Re-signing Bo Horvat doesn't mean he's rebuilding. Are you suggesting that a non-rebuilding team wouldn't have re-signed Bo Horvat?

Again. You're not listing any moves that non-rebuilding teams wouldn't also make.

3. previous season
-the team win now moves were ufa only
-he gambled on acquiring 24 year old gudbranson to become a top dman/leader
-he moved burrows and hansen for goldobin and dahlen

He traded away a recent 1st round pick, a high 2nd round pick, and a 4th round pick for Gudbranson. That's not a rebuild move. I don't see how you can consider that to be a rebuild move. That's a win-now move.

Burrows for Dahlen. Rebuild consistent move. Finally we get to one. How did that end up? In failure.

Hansen for Goldobin. I'll give that to you, even though Benning himself said he wouldn't have made that trade if not for the expansion draft. The move was not rebuild motivated.

4. previous season
-he gambled on granlund
-he gambled on etem
-he moved lack and bieksa for picks

Gambling on crap players doesn't mean he's rebuilding. I think you've established you don't understand what a rebuild is.

Moving Bieksa for a 2...sure, that's a rebuild type move. But then he traded away that 2 for Sutter. Not a rebuild move.

Did you forget that he also signed Loui Eriksson to a long-term bloated contract? Is that the type of move a rebuilding team makes?

5. previous season
-moved garrison for a pick
-he gambled on pedan
-he gambled on vey
-he gambled on baertschi
-he gambled on clendenning

Moved Garrison for a pick, sure, rebuild move. But then he traded that pick away. Not a rebuild move.

Trading away draft picks doesn't mean the team is rebuilding. Like seriously man. How can you not understand that?

note that he definitely didn't acquire picks at a prolific rate and, especially early, he moved picks on gambles that, while team development moves, were a case of moving development assets for older/riper development assets. to me that doesn't mean they weren't development moves, but i know some here will argue dogmatically that they were. whatever.

i have also left a few borderline moves here because it is not worth the debate (i think the kesler trade favoured getting younger over quality of return, and i think the sutter trade was intended to support a new core rather than the sedins) in the sense it will be nothing but a shouting match.

I asked for someone to provide examples of transactions that show Benning is rebuilding. You didn't do that. You gave a list of transactions Benning did that included several moves non-rebuilding teams make, as well as several moves that saw him giving away draft picks.

This didn't help your case at all, and instead just shows you don't understand what a rebuild is. I guess that's why we have this disagreement.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

massive post

I respect you for doing this.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I respect you for doing this.

Did you even read it? He thinks trading away draft picks and McCann for Gudbranson was a rebuilding move.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong, if I gamble on 10 age gap players, I should maybe get at least one actually good NHL player who will part of the long term future of the franchise out of it?

well prospects can be a fickle thing.

also, arguably the jury is still out on a few of the age gap gamble. we are only 5 years into that strategy and some of those age gap gamble guys are still age gap guys and still on the roster.

i mean, you would think that if you had 37 draft picks over 6 years, "you'd have at least one good nhl player who will be part of the long term future of the franchise out of it". but, even after 6 years, gillis had none to show when he was fired. and even after 11 years, we can now say definitively he had only two out of 37.

 

[4Twenty]

To summarize:
- I won't mention rebuilding moves, just a lack of playoff push moves
- I'm going to misdirect or move the goal posts and talk about Jake Wise

So nothing.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Did you even read it? He thinks trading away draft picks and McCann for Gudbranson was a rebuilding move.

He is willing to put his opinion out there.
There are so many dishonest/bad actor posters here that I find it refreshing some are willing to engage in a honest discussion. I dont need to agree with what he is saying to respect the fact that he is willing to do that.

 

[Peter10]

Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong, if I gamble on 10 age gap players, I should maybe get at least one actually good NHL player who will part of the long term future of the franchise out of it?

If you dont, blame injuries.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Did you even read it? He thinks trading away draft picks and McCann for Gudbranson was a rebuilding move.

you forgot your list of "moves inconsistent with a rebuild".

looking forward to it.

 

[timw33]

well prospects can be a fickle thing.

also, arguably the jury is still out on a few of the age gap gamble. we are only 5 years into that strategy and some of those age gap gamble guys are still age gap guys and still on the roster.

I'd argue that you pass up higher developmental potential from just taking 18 year old prospects by trading those picks for guys who are already 21/22/23 and are known quantities with reduced ceilings but maybe better floors i.e "safe".

 

[krutovsdonut]

To summarize:
- I won't mention rebuilding moves, just a lack of playoff push moves
- I'm going to misdirect or move the goal posts and talk about Jake Wise

So nothing.

the jake wise comparison was directly on point

i also directly answered y2k's demand in detail

but i am guessing you missed all of that along with the excellent pun i just made.

 

[Krnuckfan]

Most big ticket UFA's want to go to a contender, not to a rebuilding team...With a new core of promising players, the 'circumstances' for attracting UFA's to the Canucks will be different from the previous 3 years.

Yeah I'm sure UFAs are chomping at the bits to sign with the 6th worst team in the league.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I'd argue that you pass up higher developmental potential from just taking 18 year old prospects by trading those picks for guys who are already 21/22/23 and are known quantities with reduced ceilings but maybe better floors i.e "safe".

undoubtedly that's part of it, but i think there is also still upside in those guys and i also think they tend to change hands for equally low probability draft picks or assets.

pittsburgh turned down lots of chances to cut bait on pouliot for value, before their options dwindled and they finally traded him for almost nothing after one last camp when they otherwise would need to waive him. that's because they still saw upside in the guy to the bitter end.

 

[y2kcanucks]

He is willing to put his opinion out there.
There are so many dishonest/bad actor posters here that I find it refreshing some are willing to engage in a honest discussion. I dont need to agree with what he is saying to respect the fact that he is willing to do that.

You must not know his history if you think he's willing to engage in an honest discussion. Just wait for the upcoming "it's just your opinion man [that trading away draft picks is not a rebuild move]"

 

[Krnuckfan]

I'd argue that you pass up higher developmental potential from just taking 18 year old prospects by trading those picks for guys who are already 21/22/23 and are known quantities with reduced ceilings but maybe better floors i.e "safe".

The fact of the matter is teams aren't built by stockpiling leftover scraps that other nhl teams discarded. Is there any other NHL team that has acquired this many fringe reclamation projects than benning has?

Pearson, Spooner, Granlund, Motte, Leivo, Goldobin, Schenn, Pouliot

A third of the team is comprised of marginal players dumped by NHL teams with more competent management than we have.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

You must not know his history if you think he's willing to engage in an honest discussion. Just wait for the upcoming "it's just your opinion man [that trading away draft picks is not a rebuild move]"

I think Kruts just actually believes that.

You dont see the difference in the way he conducts him self vs the usual suspects here?

 

[timw33]

With a new core of promising players, the 'circumstances' for attracting UFA's to the Canucks will be different from the previous 3 years.

Going to need some cited examples of top UFAs signing with clearly rebuilding teams.

Off top of my head I expect one rebuttal to be Marian Hossa, but the counter to that is that the Blackhawks went to the Conference Finals/were a 104 point team the year before they signed Hossa.

 

[y2kcanucks]

you forgot your list of "moves inconsistent with a rebuild".

looking forward to it.

I didn't forget. Go back in this thread and look for it. Here's a quick cole's notes:

1) Signing veterans to longterm deals (Roussel and Beagle) are not consistent with a rebuild.

2) Neglecting to acquire draft picks (since we're talking about things Benning didn't do) is not consistent with a rebuild.

3) Trading away draft picks, like the 4th for Pouliot, is not consistent with a rebuild.

4) Stockpiling veterans to medium term contracts, is not consistent with a rebuild (Gagner, MDZ, Nilsson)

5) Attempting to re-sign 33 year old Alex Edler instead of focusing on trading him, is not consistent with a rebuild.

6) Targeting 23 year old Tyler Motte and a cap dump for Thomas Vanek, instead of draft picks is not consistent with a rebuild.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Except he did make win now moves this summer. Giving out those bloated, long-term contracts to Beagle and Roussel are win-now moves.

Rebuilding teams don't lock up aging veterans long-term like that. Because rebuilding teams value cap space, and value their internal salary structure. Are you saying if Tampa would have signed Jay Beagle that they would have been rebuilding?

Benning doesn't coach, so I'm not sure why you're giving him credit for Green's lineup decisions.

Not sure how signing Reid Boucher is a rebuild move. Are you saying that every team that signs AHLers in their mid-20's is rebuilding?

Okay, so Benning waived Gagner. He later traded him for Ryan Spooner (who cleared waivers) who is on the roster. How is that ar ebuild move?


You're essentially arguing that the veterans Benning signed the previous season, who were all junk, being dumped from the team is a sign they are rebuilding. I could just as easily argue that Benning replaced Gagner with the older Antoine Roussel in the lineup.

Benning made no rebuild move as the trade deadline either. Instead of targeting draft picks and trading away pending UFA's, he's looking to re-sign said pending UFA and targeted a current roster player for Gudbranson.

I still see no evidence of a rebuild here. All you're doing is describing what Benning has done. He's gotten rid of bad players. That's not a rebuild, I think every team looks to get rid of bad players. He didn't trade away draft picks. Okay (except he did, but I'm not going to quibble over a 7th round pick outside of laughing at how he bungled that whole situation). And you're saying signing a 29 and 33 year old is somehow a rebuild move. I guess every team that signs old players is rebuilding?

Do you seriously think what you're saying makes sense or has any validity at all?



Benning didn't have much cap space, but the cap space he had he used on signing veterans.

He traded away a draft pick, and didn't bother to acquire any, thus going into the 2017 draft with a pick deficit.

What kids did Benning call up for Wiercioch? He didn't call up any kids. He traded away a draft pick for Pouliot. That's not a rebuild move.

Gambled on Motte? Uh that's not rebuilding. Benning neglected to acquire any draft picks, instead targeting older prospects because he doesn't want to rebuild and instead wants to win sooner than later.

Re-signing Bo Horvat doesn't mean he's rebuilding. Are you suggesting that a non-rebuilding team wouldn't have re-signed Bo Horvat?

Again. You're not listing any moves that non-rebuilding teams wouldn't also make.



He traded away a recent 1st round pick, a high 2nd round pick, and a 4th round pick for Gudbranson. That's not a rebuild move. I don't see how you can consider that to be a rebuild move. That's a win-now move.

Burrows for Dahlen. Rebuild consistent move. Finally we get to one. How did that end up? In failure.

Hansen for Goldobin. I'll give that to you, even though Benning himself said he wouldn't have made that trade if not for the expansion draft. The move was not rebuild motivated.



Gambling on crap players doesn't mean he's rebuilding. I think you've established you don't understand what a rebuild is.

Moving Bieksa for a 2...sure, that's a rebuild type move. But then he traded away that 2 for Sutter. Not a rebuild move.

Did you forget that he also signed Loui Eriksson to a long-term bloated contract? Is that the type of move a rebuilding team makes?



Moved Garrison for a pick, sure, rebuild move. But then he traded that pick away. Not a rebuild move.

Trading away draft picks doesn't mean the team is rebuilding. Like seriously man. How can you not understand that?



I asked for someone to provide examples of transactions that show Benning is rebuilding. You didn't do that. You gave a list of transactions Benning did that included several moves non-rebuilding teams make, as well as several moves that saw him giving away draft picks.

This didn't help your case at all, and instead just shows you don't understand what a rebuild is. I guess that's why we have this disagreement.

i've offered a clear definition of a rebuild earlier. i am working to my standard not yours. i don't accept your paradigms y2k.

i do understand there is more than one way to skin a cat. i understand that you stating your contrary opinions as facts does not make it so.

 

[y2kcanucks]

i've offered a clear definition of a rebuild earlier. i am working to my standard not yours. i don't accept your paradigms y2k.

i do understand there is more than one way to skin a cat. i understand that you stating your contrary opinions as facts does not make it so.

You're just plain wrong. If you think signing a 33 year old 4th line forward for 4 years is a move rebuilding teams make, then please show me examples of other rebuilding teams that make this move. You won't, because you can't. And this isn't me moving the goalposts, this is me challenging your classification of such a move as a rebuild move.

 

[Peter10]

the jake wise comparison was directly on point

No, it is not. It is complete BS at this stage.

Both, Wise and Madden are less than 10 months removed from their draft. Neither has played a pro game yet. Still you make it feel like it is forgone conclusion that this has been a major steal. Even though right now it is clearly trending towards Madden being the better pick there it is far from confirmed yet. Actually, the most likely outcome at this stage is that neither are having any noteable NHL success. So why are you chalking that up as a win? If you want to know how a win is defined, look at Braydon Point, if Madden reaches a point half as close we can talk.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I didn't forget. Go back in this thread and look for it. Here's a quick cole's notes:

1) Signing veterans to longterm deals (Roussel and Beagle) are not consistent with a rebuild.

2) Neglecting to acquire draft picks (since we're talking about things Benning didn't do) is not consistent with a rebuild.

3) Trading away draft picks, like the 4th for Pouliot, is not consistent with a rebuild.

4) Stockpiling veterans to medium term contracts, is not consistent with a rebuild (Gagner, MDZ, Nilsson)

5) Attempting to re-sign 33 year old Alex Edler instead of focusing on trading him, is not consistent with a rebuild.

6) Targeting 23 year old Tyler Motte and a cap dump for Thomas Vanek, instead of draft picks is not consistent with a rebuild.

ok, so to summarize

you believe thatu sing cap space to acquire character players without regard for scoring prowess is not a possible part of a rebuild strategy. why?

you believe that accumulating extra draft picks as a priority is the only way to rebuild. why?

you believe that trading one rebuild/development asset for another is not rebuilding unless the asset gets younger. why?

you believe that the age gap strategy is not rebuilding. why?

you believe that re-signing a veteran career team veteran to a team that is showing signs of an emerging new core when there is no top pair d replacement yet is not consistent with rebuilding. why?

you believe your versions of facts for various canuck events (e.g., benning's stated options on the motte trade) are facts, despite contrary evidence, and you believe it so strongly you disregard the possibility people disagree with you). why?

i mean, put in the best light, your beliefs all seem like your personal extreme opinions masquerading as facts to me. i get that you don't like the strategies in question, but the idea they are objectively not rebuilding efforts seems to betray a certain overreach to me. benning is a trying to rebuild. if he fails you get to dance on his grave without the need to deny what he was trying to do. why the need to perceive reality through this absolutist prism?

 

[4Twenty]

the jake wise comparison was directly on point

i also directly answered y2k's demand in detail

but i am guessing you missed all of that along with the excellent pun i just made.

I read it.

Your first three points about this year say the same thing and I don't agree with them no matter how many different ways you try and phrase signing two 28 year olds and a 33 year old free agents isn't a win-now move.

They weren't "for the room" anymore than trading for Brandon Prust was upgraded the playoff ability. That's the same type of move he made in offseason two as he did in offseason 5.

I thought the Jake Wise comment looked like classic misdirection....but maybe I was wrong.

 

[krutovsdonut]

No, it is not. It is complete BS at this stage.

Both, Wise and Madden are less than 10 months removed from their draft. Neither has played a pro game yet. Still you make it feel like it is forgone conclusion that this has been a major steal. Even though right now it is clearly trending towards Madden being the better pick there it is far from confirmed yet. Actually, the most likely outcome at this stage is that neither are having any noteable NHL success. So why are you chalking that up as a win? If you want to know how a win is defined, look at Braydon Point, if Madden reaches a point half as close we can talk.

dude, for the second time, i was comparing people wanting wise to people wanting point, nothing to do with madden. go back and look.

the op said people here wanted to pick point. i noted that people here also wanted to pick wise. wise is not trending like point did.

that is it. madden has nothing to do with it. you are projecting some other argument i am not making.