Quick re-tool or major re-build?

[me2]

I really dont understand the sentiment that "rebuilds are destined to fail".

The last 5 stanley cup winners all went through rebuilds: Chicago, la, Pittsburgh, even boston had some terrible two years after the lockout.

Then Carolina, Tampa, Anaheim also had some lean years before they won their cups. Only detroit has not re built their team before a championship.

It can work or it can fail, it just depends on getting lucky with draft years and with good scouting (lol Canuck scouting lol). You can do everything right (at the time) and still flop if you have lean years (see Edmonton, Florida etc).

I'm not against a rebuild but wait and see what happens this offseason first: a few good young players could turn this team around quickly. If you can't get them then try the rebuild, you don't loose anything by testing the waters.

 

[alternate]

1994 we finished 7th in the conference, 1 game over .500 and +3 in goals differential. That was after a couple of 100 point seasons (when there wasn't a loser point by the way).

Things can turn around in a week in the NHL. No way the door is closed on this core just because they're collectively going through a tough stretch.

 

[Snatcher Demko]

1994 we finished 7th in the conference, 1 game over .500 and +3 in goals differential. That was after a couple of 100 point seasons (when there wasn't a loser point by the way).

Things can turn around in a week in the NHL. No way the door is closed on this core just because they're collectively going through a tough stretch.

That would really be a miracle. That team was young (the core was young, Linden at 24, Bure 22 and most of the rest of the core in their mid-20s). They acquired a #1 PP QB to end the season as well as a solid top 4 guy (Hedican).

As a longtime Canucks fan, I have learned to look at things realistically (perhaps cynically) but I see the much greater probability that they just slide further.

The lack of mental toughness with this group is especially telling.

 

[MikeK]

That would really be a miracle. That team was young (the core was young, Linden at 24, Bure 22 and most of the rest of the core in their mid-20s). They acquired a #1 PP QB to end the season as well as a solid top 4 guy (Hedican).

As a longtime Canucks fan, I have learned to look at things realistically (perhaps cynically) but I see the much greater probability that they just slide further.

The lack of mental toughness with this group is especially telling.

IMO, mental toughness has never been a strong attribute with this core. We have seen many situations over the years where they have either not shown up or have completely fallen part.

 

[Wilch]

I think this group just had terrible luck in the last 4-5 years with injuries. The Canucks should have hired a pro exorcist 5 years ago when they were forced to play SOB top minutes. Now it's too bloody late with all our core guys all beat up and injured.

 

[Shareefruck]

While a rebuild doesn't guarantee success, I feel that a retool guarantees mediocrity in our case.

 

[JA]

That would really be a miracle. That team was young (the core was young, Linden at 24, Bure 22 and most of the rest of the core in their mid-20s). They acquired a #1 PP QB to end the season as well as a solid top 4 guy (Hedican).

As a longtime Canucks fan, I have learned to look at things realistically (perhaps cynically) but I see the much greater probability that they just slide further.

The lack of mental toughness with this group is especially telling.

That team was definitely young. The average age on that roster (if we consider all 34 players who played for the team at some point that year) was 24.67.

Many of the players had the potential to play at a high level for at least a few more years. The team's top players were all young, and most were highly motivated. Only four of the team's players were in their 30s. After the 1993-94 season, the team still had some life. Once Pavel was injured in the 1995-96 season, the team could rely on Alexander Mogilny for a short while. During the 1993-94 season, however, there was a definite decline from the previous season. The team, being younger, stayed afloat for a few seasons longer; the current team, in contrast, is older and appears to be at the end of its run. The 1993-94 team, though younger, still very much needed Pavel Bure to score at a ridiculous rate to push them into the playoffs, and one could argue that team overachieved in its run to the Stanley Cup Finals. The team was beginning its decline, but they had a star playing better than ever to keep them afloat; Jyrki Lumme and Jiri Slegr also elevated their game. The current team has no such player at the moment to counteract the rest of the team's decline.

They were very fortunate to have reached the playoffs at all; they needed Pavel to be at his best. In final 51 games of the season, Pavel picked his game up and, as I've stated many times before on this forum, scored 49 goals in the last 51 games of the season and contributed to 46% of their goals points-wise in that span. Trevor, by comparison, scored just 13 goals during that stretch; Geoff Courtnall had just 16. Those goal totals for those players are actually not too bad, but the team had the luxury of relying on Pavel.

The odds of someone saving the team this season are extremely low considering the personnel we have. This roster is older than the 1993-94 team and has no such superstar playing at his peak. Even if we add a piece, this current team is old by NHL standards and might only worsen by the year. This team is at the end of its run.

Also, a clear difference between 1992-93 and 1993-94 was the loss of Petr Nedved. Nedved contributed 38 goals and 71 points in the 1992-93 season. The team's decline was partially an issue of losing certain players; the team's top forwards (aside from Pavel) were worse than they were the previous season, but not to an enormous degree. Some of the players were a bit inconsistent, but they still played at a high level at times. That's not really the case here; instead, this current team is simply slipping. Nobody right now is improving, and generally their play is far worse than it's been in the past several seasons. Mentally, they are fragile.

This team isn't comparable to the 1993-94 team. This isn't even the 2007-08 team, as the Sedins and Kesler were on the rise to becoming elite players at that time. This team needs to rebuild.

 

[Samzilla]

There's really no point discussing a retool or a rebuild...no matter what happens, something will derail our shot at success. Bad trades, bad development, bad injuries, etc. There's honestly no point in trying, and any discussion is moot. It's just the way of the Canucks.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

1994 we finished 7th in the conference, 1 game over .500 and +3 in goals differential. That was after a couple of 100 point seasons (when there wasn't a loser point by the way).

Things can turn around in a week in the NHL. No way the door is closed on this core just because they're collectively going through a tough stretch.

That will be winning the lottery. The kings did it, but we aren't the kings. We are the canucks. Lots of other teams could do it, but not us. This core is done.

 

[ginner classic]

That will be winning the lottery. The kings did it, but we aren't the kings. We are the canucks. Lots of other teams could do it, but not us. This core is done.

Actually only one team won the cup ranked 10th in the nhl and one at 6th. Until the kings. Nothing like that has happened before in the 21+ team nhl.

 

[Hodgy]

But even prior to December the team was losing games they should have been winning. They were outplaying their opposition almost every night (probably why they've worn down as bad as they have).

Teams win on the backs of good goaltending all the time, yeah it would be nice to score more, but prior to the calendar year of 2014 the Canucks were playing very good hockey. They've gone off the rails a bit here, but this isn't a bottom 5 team. It could be if you take the engine, that's why I don't want to take the engine.

What are you basing this on? The notion that the Canucks were a top 10 team prior to December is far from settled. In fact, if I recall correctly, goal differential, wins, and points seem to indicate that the Canucks were not a 10 team. It appears a small group of posters on this forum believed the Canucks were a top 10 team based on several advanced statistics. However, as I am sure you can appreciate, these statistics are not determinative, and are not always indicative of a team's true ability. Many posters doubted the veracity of these statistics at this time, and based on the Canucks play since earlier this year, it appears these doubters were more likely correct.

 

[Wilch]

What are you basing this on? The notion that the Canucks were a top 10 team prior to December is far from settled. In fact, if I recall correctly, goal differential, wins, and points seem to indicate that the Canucks were not a 10 team. It appears a small group of posters on this forum believed the Canucks were a top 10 team based on several advanced statistics. However, as I am sure you can appreciate, these statistics are not determinative, and are not always indicative of a team's true ability. Many posters doubted the veracity of these statistics at this time, and based on the Canucks play since earlier this year, it appears these doubters were more likely correct.

He probably based it on watching the game rather than stat scouting?

Also, pretty funny how you make a statistics backed statement, and proceed to discredit advanced stats in the following sentence.

The best way to determine how well a team is playing is by watching the games, not stat picking.

 

[NuxFan09]

What are you basing this on? The notion that the Canucks were a top 10 team prior to December is far from settled. In fact, if I recall correctly, goal differential, wins, and points seem to indicate that the Canucks were not a 10 team. It appears a small group of posters on this forum believed the Canucks were a top 10 team based on several advanced statistics. However, as I am sure you can appreciate, these statistics are not determinative, and are not always indicative of a team's true ability. Many posters doubted the veracity of these statistics at this time, and based on the Canucks play since earlier this year, it appears these doubters were more likely correct.

Reminds me of people trying to argue before the season started that scoring will be fine because Hansen is technically a top 6 player.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

What are you basing this on? The notion that the Canucks were a top 10 team prior to December is far from settled. In fact, if I recall correctly, goal differential, wins, and points seem to indicate that the Canucks were not a 10 team.

I would have to agree.

It goes back to last season as well. The Canucks finished 7th in the NHL, but were 14th in terms of goal differential, while receiving elite level goaltending from Cory Schneider, in a very easy division.

There were some obvious signs going back to last year that indicated this team was no longer elite, mainly the lacklustre goal differential, poor offensive showing and weak PP. I was hoping a healthy Kesler would be enough to get them back into top 5 territory, but it appears they just don't have the skill or depth up front to be considered an upper echelon club any longer.

You also have to separate being able to skate with other excellent teams with being able to pose a serious threat to those teams. When healthy, the Canucks have shown they can skate with anyone this season - the problem is, you need to be able to put the puck in the net, something they haven't shown at any point this season, or last for that matter.

Scoring is a young man's game, and this team has no youth. Gillis better sort this out soon.

 

[Snatcher Demko]

That team was definitely young. The average age on that roster (if we consider all 34 players who played for the team at some point that year) was 24.67.

Many of the players had the potential to play at a high level for at least a few more years. The team's top players were all young, and most were highly motivated. Only four of the team's players were in their 30s. After the 1993-94 season, the team still had some life. Once Pavel was injured in the 1995-96 season, the team could rely on Alexander Mogilny for a short while. During the 1993-94 season, however, there was a definite decline from the previous season. The team, being younger, stayed afloat for a few seasons longer; the current team, in contrast, is older and appears to be at the end of its run. The 1993-94 team, though younger, still very much needed Pavel Bure to score at a ridiculous rate to push them into the playoffs, and one could argue that team overachieved in its run to the Stanley Cup Finals. The team was beginning its decline, but they had a star playing better than ever to keep them afloat; Jyrki Lumme and Jiri Slegr also elevated their game. The current team has no such player at the moment to counteract the rest of the team's decline.

They were very fortunate to have reached the playoffs at all; they needed Pavel to be at his best. In final 51 games of the season, Pavel picked his game up and, as I've stated many times before on this forum, scored 49 goals in the last 51 games of the season and contributed to 46% of their goals points-wise in that span. Trevor, by comparison, scored just 13 goals during that stretch; Geoff Courtnall had just 16. Those goal totals for those players are actually not too bad, but the team had the luxury of relying on Pavel.

The odds of someone saving the team this season are extremely low considering the personnel we have. This roster is older than the 1993-94 team and has no such superstar playing at his peak. Even if we add a piece, this current team is old by NHL standards and might only worsen by the year. This team is at the end of its run.

Also, a clear difference between 1992-93 and 1993-94 was the loss of Petr Nedved. Nedved contributed 38 goals and 71 points in the 1992-93 season. The team's decline was partially an issue of losing certain players; the team's top forwards (aside from Pavel) were worse than they were the previous season, but not to an enormous degree. Some of the players were a bit inconsistent, but they still played at a high level at times. That's not really the case here; instead, this current team is simply slipping. Nobody right now is improving, and generally their play is far worse than it's been in the past several seasons. Mentally, they are fragile.

This team isn't comparable to the 1993-94 team. This isn't even the 2007-08 team, as the Sedins and Kesler were on the rise to becoming elite players at that time. This team needs to rebuild.

Yes, I had neglected to mention Nedved's dark cloud over that regular season, not just from his absence, but also from the Craig Janney debacle.

Funny but true story, I was 16 at the time and met Geoff Courtnall while having lunch at his restaurant with some buddies (Double Overtime, IIRC) and said to him that they should trade Nedved for Jeff Brown. He just laughed at me, one of those "whatever you say, kid" laughs. That was a couple of months before the deal went down.

I had no idea Bure scored 49 in 51 that year. Linden was getting heat all year for his lack of production. That team was more like the LA Kings than this one, they were big and mean, had an elite sniper and a legitimate PPQB. Those ingredients just aren't there for the 2014 team.

 

[Upoil]

No one is citing them a guaranteed failure, not necessarily at least. The wrench in the argument lays with their uncertainty and willingly failing in the hopes we're better half a decade (likely longer) than now. Chicago, LA and Pittsburgh all went through significant drought of complete ineptitude before they finally saw success. Hell, Chicago, to this day, holds the longest cup drought in NHL history.

Boston is an interesting example. People constantly cite how bad Vancouver's playoff record is of late, yet it's Boston with the dubious honor of being ousted in the most embarrassing fashion. They simply won the cup the following year - winning cures all.

Rebuilding is fine, if circumstance necessitates it, however to intentionally adopt a loser's mentality has a domino effect. If the organization thinks itself a loser, management will to, and in kind, so will the players. And you now have the Edmonton Oilers. Suck because you legitimately suck, not because you're hoping for a miracle. The former is what happened to Pittsburgh and Chicago, the latter is what became of Edmonton, Florida, Columbus and etc. You can see why many are less enthused to follow their footsteps.

So much this.

Gillis has consistently said he wants a competitive team every year. Full rebuild mode goes against his MO.

I look to what Det and SJ have done as a model. SJ especially is reaping the rewards of injecting youth into an aging core.

 

[Hodgy]

He probably based it on watching the game rather than stat scouting?

Also, pretty funny how you make a statistics backed statement, and proceed to discredit advanced stats in the following sentence.

The best way to determine how well a team is playing is by watching the games, not stat picking.

Obviously I watched all the games as well, don't be so foolish.

 

[Wilch]

So much this.

Gillis has consistently said he wants a competitive team every year. Full rebuild mode goes against his MO.

I look to what Det and SJ have done as a model. SJ especially is reaping the rewards of injecting youth into an aging core.

Detroit had the benefit of hitting two major home runs and a grand slam in Zetterberg, Datsyuk, and Lidstrom.

These three guys have been pretty effective throughout their whole career (aside from Datsyuk). They were able to churn out decent prospects because these 3 guys bought them time.

While the Sedins are great, the were elite for a shorter period.

Also, we drafted late and our scouts were terrible.

Injecting youth requires talented prospects. We can't very well just put garbage like Sauve into the line up.

 

[Upoil]

Detroit had the benefit of hitting two major home runs and a grand slam in Zetterberg, Datsyuk, and Lidstrom.

These three guys have been pretty effective throughout their whole career (aside from Datsyuk). They were able to churn out decent prospects because these 3 guys bought them time.

While the Sedins are great, the were elite for a shorter period.

Also, we drafted late and our scouts were terrible.

Injecting youth requires talented prospects. We can't very well just put garbage like Sauve into the line up.

Your concern about the lack of quality prospects is obviously shared by Nuck management. Why else would Gillis make moves to own their AHL affiliate and revamp scouting. I too share these concerns as I see young players contributing big on other teams. But these things don't change in an instant. The fact that the entire system is changing is a good sign; but we won't see the results before a lot of Nuck fan bemoaning that they are never coming.

Just because they aren't ready to step into the line up this year doesn't mean that they won't ever be ready.

It's a rough(er) patch for Nuck fans. Stay strong.

 

[PG Canuck]

While a rebuild doesn't guarantee success, I feel that a retool guarantees mediocrity in our case.

Agreed. We need basically, a completely new core.

 

[Wilch]

Your concern about the lack of quality prospects is obviously shared by Nuck management. Why else would Gillis make moves to own their AHL affiliate and revamp scouting. I too share these concerns as I see young players contributing big on other teams. But these things don't change in an instant. The fact that the entire system is changing is a good sign; but we won't see the results before a lot of Nuck fan bemoaning that they are never coming.

Just because they aren't ready to step into the line up this year doesn't mean that they won't ever be ready.

It's a rough(er) patch for Nuck fans. Stay strong.

Which is why I think the management should strongly consider moving pieces for draft picks this year.

Once fully rehabilitated from whatever injuries that's ailing the Sedins, I expect them to have at least 3-4 years of good top 6 hockey out of them. Daniel worries me a bit, but I think a lot of it is mental rather than physical limitations. And if the league decides they want to move out of the dead puck era 2.0, then all the better for the Sedins.

Edler is without a question, the prime piece to be moved. Now, as important as Kesler is to this team, we need to move something of value to get something of value back. The problem with the current roster is scoring and age. Kesler is the guy who carries the team in a lot of situations, but I think he has less than 3 good years left in him, and is the most movable piece out of our central core players.

Moving Kesler will undoubtedly set the team back for a good 2 years, until guys like Gaunce and Horvat are ready. My way of thinking, however, is that if the Canucks give up this season and the next, trade Edler and Kesler for a blue chip prospect, a top 5 first, and whatever else. Take another high end player if the Canucks can pick top 7. By then, most of the prospects we picked since Gillis's reform in 2011 should be ready to contribute. Whoever we picked in 2014/15 should also be ready, as blue chip prospects are usually NHL ready earlier, and go for it in 2016/17. Sedins may still provide decent 2nd line production then, and the Canucks are cap-cleared to make big time splashes in FA.

However, if the Canucks stand pat or only decide to move Edler for whatever, end up drafting from 12-18 for the next 4 years... At best, they hit three consecutive home runs and pick the next Couture, Pavelski, and Eberle (no, not Giroux, Perry or Getzlaf, those would be major grand slams). Guys picked at this range, generally aren't ready to make an impact until 2-3 years later. By then, most of our current core guys are double declining and won't be able to contribute as much.

Both choices are gambles and have plenty of variables involved, with the latter guaranteeing a short period of mediocrity, and the former a short period of suckage.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

It's late, I'm bored. Therefore, I bring you a full scale, completely unrealistic rebuilt roster!

Kesler and Bieksa: Silfverberg, DSP, Etem, 1st
Edler: Schenn brothers
Burrows and Hansen: Eller + Thrower/Ellis
Higgins: Despres + pick
Luongo: Kulikov

Could have traded Hamhuis and Garrison, but I opted not to in this case.

FORWARDS
Daniel Sedin ($7.000m) / Henrik Sedin ($7.000m) / Zack Kassian ($1.000m)
Emerson Etem ($0.870m) / Brayden Schenn ($2.500m) / Jakob Silfverberg ($0.851m)
Mike Santorelli ($1.550m) / Lars Eller ($2.000m) / Devante Smith-Pelly ($0.725m)
David Booth ($4.250m) / Brad Richardson ($1.150m) / Tom Sestito ($0.750m)
Zac Dalpe ($0.605m) /
DEFENSEMEN
Dan Hamhuis ($4.500m) / Chris Tanev ($3.000m)
Dmitry Kulikov ($3.000m) / Jason Garrison ($4.600m)
Ryan Stanton ($0.550m) / Luke Schenn ($3.600m)
Simon Despres ($0.851m) / Morgan Ellis ($0.640m)
GOALTENDERS
Eddie Lack ($1.150m)
Joacim Eriksson ($0.925m)
BUYOUTS
Keith Ballard ($0.000m)
------
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(estimations for 2014-15)
SALARY CAP: $71,100,000; CAP PAYROLL: $53,065,500; BONUSES: $260,000
CAP SPACE (23-man roster): $18,034,500

 

[Balls Mahoney]

It's late, I'm bored. Therefore, I bring you a full scale, completely unrealistic rebuilt roster!

Kesler and Bieksa: Silfverberg, DSP, Etem, 1st
Edler: Schenn brothers
Burrows and Hansen: Eller + Thrower/Ellis
Higgins: Despres + pick
Luongo: Kulikov

Hmm... Not terrible. My only complaint would be I'm not sure I'd like to move Higgins. He's quietly one of the most underrated players in the league and is one of the few Canucks having a good season.

 

[dave babych returns]

I think it's pretty clear the Canucks are going to try to go through a years-long period of retooling rather than heading down the road of some kind of major rebuild; similar to what they did with the blueline between 2008 and 2010.

Obviously there's a big difference here in that they're going to have to find a few high end forwards in the next couple of years but I'd be astonished if they went about that by trading away more than one of their best three or four players, or by drafting at the top of the draft over a period of several years.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I am not weighting injuries heavily. They will obviously factor into performance, though it's not like the Canucks are the only team that has had some of their top players miss time. The fact they're basically an injury to Henrik away from being a bottom feeder just points to their lack of depth and talent throughout the lineup.

My opinion is still the same. This core group isn't good enough to contend with.

It has been speculated that Daniel has been playing with injury (Botchford on Team1040 says he has been working with medical staff after games), and that it is known that Burrows is struggling to come back from one. So that's 3 players of this team's big4 up front. Then another top6 gets injured for the year in Santorelli... A Henrik injury away from being a bottom feeder indeed.

The final sentence is interesting because it excludes the possibility that the core can be supplemented. You could have the same core, + 1 or two high end additions, and that would put the team in a great position to compete. That sentence makes it seem like no matter what the realistic supplement, these core players cannot get it done regardless.