Quick re-tool or major re-build?

[me2]

I agree completely. Mediocrity cannot be accepted here.

Tell Aquilini that. He's the guy that I'm worried about.

 

[Wilch]

Tell Aquilini that. He's the guy that I'm worried about.

I believe the Aquas run a conglomerate that's worth $5bn. Who really knows how rich they are.

Too bad though. Would have loved to have someone like Mark Cuban as our owner, willing to spend some serious cheese to win.

Also, Hodgy and Bleach Clean, please stop arguing over petty semantics. Who cares.

 

[I in the Eye]

Tell Aquilini that. He's the guy that I'm worried about.

If Aquilini wanted that, I'd think that Nonis would still be the Canucks GM. The reason Gillis was hired was because Nonis was perceived to be a mediocre wimp. My impression is that Aquilini wants to win, and is willing to make (and endorse) "difficult decisions" to make it so.

 

[Sheener]

There's trouble looming every year. Every year, there are challenges, predators, and competitors. You see the challenging times ahead as something to fear... A guy like Ryan Walter would see those challenging times ahead, as an "opportunity to shine".

I'm all for making a key change or two (for reasons outlined in previous posts)... but at the start of each season, if Gillis isn't thinking about "what's it going to take to win the cup this year", looking at the roster on hand, what's available to fill in the missing pieces for that year's version of the Canucks (given the salary cap as a constraint), and trying to reach this goal, every year, the best he can with what he's got... then he's just not doing his job. That's the job of every General Manager in the league. The reason teams are bottom feeders is simply because they cannot stop being bottom feeders. And they have to sell their fans the promise of youth, because there is nothing else to sell. At the start of each year, every one of them is trying to get better. Only the Oilers embraced this role of being annual bottom feeder (submitting defeat before the season even started)... and that's because they had to... they had no way to get better as no one of significance who could help wanted to play or stay with them. Now, they want out from being a bottom feeder because they feel it's time to get out... but real life doesn't work like that. No one can put a time limit on this. Not how long it would take to rebuild, and not how long the Canucks have left before naturally being a bottom feeder, assuming all negative outputs and no positive inputs. 2 years is arbitrary. It's okay to guess, and give opinions, but no one can say with any degree of certainty. Someone can point to player ages, but that is very shortsighted and ignores so much that can take place between now and two years from now.

Re-build is just not an option, IMO. "Re-build" is a term invented by bottom feeders to sell their fans something... It sounds like it's worthy of investing into, and being a part of, and that great things will result. "Re-tool" with a "commitment to youth" is a good option given where this team is, and where they are in their lifecycle. When the team can't sell Stanley Cup contender at the moment, this is what Gillis needs to sell. If he sells "re-build", speaking for myself, I'm not buying. I'll watch the Canucks on tv, happily and whenever I can. But some other chump can spend money to go to the games regularly to watch this "re-build" live. How long would the tv show run for? Doubt Gillis would put a timeline on it, in years. No matter how dumb someone thinks Gillis is, he's still a lot smarter than Lowe.

You make no sense at all. You say "bottom feeders are bottom feeders because they can't stop being bottom feeders" yet look at Pittsburgh, Chicago from a few years ago, they turned it around and alot of other teams have too. You say "its ok to guess and give opinions, but no one can say with any degree of certainty", but then you take shots directly at another team because of their rebuild? Can you even spell "hypocrite" or " contradiction"..?

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

As much as I like the kind of Dman Bieksa is, I think he is a likely candidate to be moved. At his age, his value likely won't be higher than this trade deadline.

Hansen is another candidate.

I don't think Gillis will get value for Edler or Burrows, so I think they will likely stay and hope their value rebounds at the draft or that their individual play improves so they become tradeable assets.

I also think you start giving some nice ice time and zone starts to a player like Richardson, to see if you can sell him off.

I think a few of these players could benefit from the old AV- "Cody's unit" treatment, ie. pump these guys opportunities so some team gets suckered.

 

[I in the Eye]

You make no sense at all. You say "bottom feeders are bottom feeders because they can't stop being bottom feeders" yet look at Pittsburgh, Chicago from a few years ago, they turned it around and alot of other teams have too. You say "its ok to guess and give opinions, but no one can say with any degree of certainty", but then you take shots directly at another team because of their rebuild? Can you even spell "hypocrite" or " contradiction"..?

Welcome!

"Re-build" is an "after-the-fact" term attached to a team that is experiencing prolonged years being a bottom-feeder. It's a product (or "re-packaging") that the GM can still sell. Pittsburgh, Chicago, Florida, NYI, Buffalo, etc. didn't strategically put themselves as a bottom-feeder for prolonged years. All of them want to win ASAP. Announce their rebuild is over, as soon as, as early as possible.

"Re-tool" is an "after-the-fact" term attached to a team that was a Stanley Cup and/or playoff contender that is experiencing prolonged years not being able to reach this goal again. It's a product (or "re-packaging") that the GM can still sell. It wasn't a shot at the Oilers, IMO. It was the only team I can think of that for prolonged years, wants to be a terrible team for high draft picks. If that hurts, that's not my intention. They no longer want to be a re-building team (or, still have that label around their team), but, they can't decide when the "re-build" is over. Lowe doesn't control this product. The product is just a term. The product is just a nice packaging around a bar of ****. The "re-build" product itself isn't tangible. It's just a name attached to a ****** situation. When Lowe says he felt this year the "re-build" would be over, what he's really saying is that he felt that this year, the ****** situation would be over. But it looks like the "re-build" (****** situation) will be taking a bit longer.

No team that has recently been a Stanley Cup or playoff contender strategically sells themselves as a "rebuilding team" before being a bottom feeder. If a bold move or two are made, it's a "re-tool" and if younger players are brought in, it's also a "commitment to youth".

It would be silly, IMO, for the Canucks to completely (or significantly) sell off the core for prospects and picks. Chicago didn't do it, before they were a bad team. The Penguins didn't do it, before they were a bad team. Florida didn't do it, before they were a bad team. Buffalo didn't do it, before they were a bad team.

What are examples of teams that have done this? Teams that have strategically blown up their recently successful team (and currently playoff bubble team) to be rich in prospects and picks (other than to be salary cap compliant) in exchange for poor in roster?

 

[Wilch]

Welcome!

"Re-build" is an "after-the-fact" term attached to a team that is experiencing prolonged years being a bottom-feeder. It's a product (or "re-packaging") that the GM can still sell. Pittsburgh, Chicago, Florida, NYI, Buffalo, etc. didn't strategically put themselves as a bottom-feeder for prolonged years. All of them want to win ASAP. Announce their rebuild is over, as soon as, as early as possible.

"Re-tool" is an "after-the-fact" term attached to a team that was a Stanley Cup and/or playoff contender that is experiencing prolonged years not being able to reach this goal again. It's a product (or "re-packaging") that the GM can still sell. It wasn't a shot at the Oilers, IMO. It was the only team I can think of that for prolonged years, wants to be a terrible team for high draft picks. If that hurts, that's not my intention. They no longer want to be a re-building team, but, they can't decide when the "re-build" is over. Lowe doesn't control the product. The product is just a term. The product itself isn't tangible. It's just a name attached to a ****** situation.

No team that has recently been a Stanley Cup or playoff contender strategically sells themselves as a "rebuild" before being a bottom feeder. If a bold move or two are made, it's a "re-tool" and if younger players are brought in, it's also a "commitment to youth".

It would be silly, IMO, for the Canucks to completely (or significantly) sell off the core for prospects and picks. Chicago didn't do it, before they were a bad team. The Penguins didn't do it, before they were a bad team. Florida didn't do it, before they were a bad team. Buffalo didn't do it, before they were a bad team.

What are examples of teams that have done this? Teams that have strategically blown up their recently successful team (and currently playoff bubble team) to be richer in prospects and picks (other than to be salary cap compliant)?

It's ok. We already set a ton of precedents, setting another one won't hurt.

 

[ionicbluebird]

Welcome!

"Re-build" is an "after-the-fact" term attached to a team that is experiencing prolonged years being a bottom-feeder. It's a product (or "re-packaging") that the GM can still sell. Pittsburgh, Chicago, Florida, NYI, Buffalo, etc. didn't strategically put themselves as a bottom-feeder for prolonged years. All of them want to win ASAP. Announce their rebuild is over, as soon as, as early as possible.

"Re-tool" is an "after-the-fact" term attached to a team that was a Stanley Cup and/or playoff contender that is experiencing prolonged years not being able to reach this goal again. It's a product (or "re-packaging") that the GM can still sell. It wasn't a shot at the Oilers, IMO. It was the only team I can think of that for prolonged years, wants to be a terrible team for high draft picks. If that hurts, that's not my intention. They no longer want to be a re-building team (or, still have that label around their team), but, they can't decide when the "re-build" is over. Lowe doesn't control this product. The product is just a term. The product is just a nice packaging around a bar of ****. The "re-build" product itself isn't tangible. It's just a name attached to a ****** situation. When Lowe says he felt this year the "re-build" would be over, what he's really saying is that he felt that this year, the ****** situation would be over. But it looks like the "re-build" (****** situation) will be taking a bit longer.

No team that has recently been a Stanley Cup or playoff contender strategically sells themselves as a "rebuilding team" before being a bottom feeder. If a bold move or two are made, it's a "re-tool" and if younger players are brought in, it's also a "commitment to youth".

It would be silly, IMO, for the Canucks to completely (or significantly) sell off the core for prospects and picks. Chicago didn't do it, before they were a bad team. The Penguins didn't do it, before they were a bad team. Florida didn't do it, before they were a bad team. Buffalo didn't do it, before they were a bad team.

What are examples of teams that have done this? Teams that have strategically blown up their recently successful team (and currently playoff bubble team) to be rich in prospects and picks (other than to be salary cap compliant) in exchange for poor in roster?

I think it would be the smart thing to do... to speed up an inevitable process.

 

[I in the Eye]

I think it would be the smart thing to do... to speed up an inevitable process.

I think it would be suicide... which is also speeding up an inevitable process.

This "life" (or success over the last several years) is a gift. True, nothing lasts forever, and it will one day go. Everything does. But my vote is to enjoy it, appreciate it, and try to prolong it, for as long as you can. Yes, there are cracks. But as Coen says, "there's a crack in everything... that's how the light gets in".

 

[oceanchild]

I think it would be suicide... which is also speeding up an inevitable process.

This "life" (or success over the last several years) is a gift. True, nothing lasts forever, and it will one day go. Everything does. But my vote is to enjoy it, appreciate it, and try to prolong it, for as long as you can. Yes, there are cracks. But as Coen says, "there's a crack in everything... that's how the light gets in".

While I agree with large portions of your statements, I also think having a delusional belief that "your team" is a true Stanley cup contender as a GM is unhealthy at best. This team has to evaluate the age and term of several key players and balance that with the likelihood of its current prospects filling gaps in the roster at just the right time. I personally don't believe a wave of talented youngsters will augment the roster enough to offset the regressing contributions of several key players ( Sedins, Burrows,Kesler, Bieska) and allow this team to be a favourite.

The problem with trying to win under this pretence is you are left to rely on statistical anomalies or "luck" to win. That's a horrible decision to make. Gillis in my opinion is able to make rational and tough decisions for the greater good (hodgson trade). I'm not saying burn it down, I am saying some players need to pack their bags.

 

[I in the Eye]

While I agree with large portions of your statements, I also think having a delusional belief that "your team" is a true Stanley cup contender as a GM is unhealthy at best. This team has to evaluate the age and term of several key players and balance that with the likelihood of its current prospects filling gaps in the roster at just the right time. I personally don't believe a wave of talented youngsters will augment the roster enough to offset the regressing contributions of several key players ( Sedins, Burrows,Kesler, Bieska) and allow this team to be a favourite.

The problem with trying to win under this pretence is you are left to rely on statistical anomalies or "luck" to win. That's a horrible decision to make. Gillis in my opinion is able to make rational and tough decisions for the greater good (hodgson trade). I'm not saying burn it down, I am saying some players need to pack their bags.

I agree that some players need to pack their bags. I'm not saying to keep everything the same. That, again, to me, would be suicide. To me, changes need to be made to prolong things, and continue enjoying (and enjoying more) things.

I don't believe that a wave of youngsters will come and save the day. I don't believe that a magic bullet UFA or RFA will do the same. But I do believe that there is a few changes that can be made, to mix in with what is kept, to create something better and new.

You don't rely on luck to win... but you always need luck to win. You need talent, support, hard work, and luck. With one of these missing or lacking, someone else with a stronger more complete mix will win. While you need luck, you can put yourself in situations to be lucky, so you do have some control over that as well.

The only two things I am against are (1) the "rebuild" term - this term is reserved for bottom-feeding teams, and I don't see how the Canucks can be seen as one; and (2) getting rid of the majority (or all) of the "core" in exchange for prospects and picks. One or two, ok. Want to trade Edler + Kesler for Shea Weber (just an example), fine. Just don't blow the whole thing up with your mind living in the future.

Every GM should have meetings and thoughts about what it will take to win the cup this year. Obviously, not every team will have realistic opportunities, and it's an exercise in thinking only... but it sets them in the right path, sooner rather than later.

 

[oceanchild]

I agree that some players need to pack their bags. I'm not saying to keep everything the same. That, again, to me, would be suicide. To me, changes need to be made to prolong things, and continue enjoying (and enjoying more) things.

I don't believe that a wave of youngsters will come and save the day. I don't believe that a magic bullet UFA or RFA will do the same. But I do believe that there is a few changes that can be made, to mix in with what is kept, to create something new.

You don't rely on luck to win... but you always need luck to win. You need talent, support, hard work, and luck. With one of these present, someone else will win. While you need luck, you can put yourself in situations to be lucky, so you do have some control over that as well.

The only two things I am against are (1) the "rebuild" term - this term is reserved for bottom-feeding teams, and I don't see how the Canucks can be seen as one; and (2) getting rid of the majority (or all) of the "core" in exchange for prospects and picks. One or two, ok. Want to trade Edler + Kesler for Shea Weber (just an example), fine. Just don't blow the whole thing up with your mind living in the future.

Every GM should have meetings and thoughts about what it will take to win the cup this year. Obviously, not every team will have realistic opportunities, and it's an exercise in thinking only... but it sets them in the right path, sooner rather than later.

Agreed, and I would do above trade. I think we need a couple more good prospects, one of which needs to make a living as a defenseman

 

[dave babych returns]

You say "bottom feeders are bottom feeders because they can't stop being bottom feeders" yet look at Pittsburgh, Chicago from a few years ago, they turned it around and alot of other teams have too.

Pittsburgh went from bankruptcy to being on the verge of being relocated, while they could not afford to ice a proper NHL roster they were continuously scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of on ice performance. Then they drafted two of the best three or four players in hockey in consecutive years, combine that with a massive turnaround in the financial fortunes of that franchise, and some solid GM-ing by Ray Shero and that's what put them where they are today. They did not choose to rebuild, they simply could not afford to operate as a winning NHL franchise.

Chicago for years suffered under one of the worst owners in professional sports - Bill Wirtz - who was responsible for such unpopular decisions as blacking out ALL home games in the Chicago area while raising ticket prices to some of the most expensive in the league, cutting fan favourite play-by-play announcer Pat Foley loose after 25 years, and oh yeah presiding over an awful hockey team rather than investing in bringing in players who could make them competitive. They made the playoffs just one time in seven years before they started their rebuild keep in mind the pick we obtained in 1999 at the top of the draft to get the other Sedin was originally theirs, they made the playoffs again in what.. 2009?

Los Angeles foundered for years, pretty much going back to their bankruptcy in the 1990s and the Gretzky trade, they made the playoffs a few times around the turn of the century but were pretty awful for several years before cleaning house and hiring Dean Lombardi - even then that was a pretty exceptional situation in that Lombardi did do a bit of a slow rebuild.

Boston are probably a good example of how to do this, just four playoff misses dating back to 1999. The Joe Thornton trade and subsequent playoff miss got Mike O'Connell fired, new GM Peter Chiarelli was able to get a franchise defenseman in free agency in Zdeno Chara, and while they did have a high end draft pick in Phil Kessel (that they turned into an even higher pick in Seguin plus another top ten pick), most of their cup winning franchise was not assembled by way of tanking.

When I look at these franchises I don't see consecutive last place finishes in common, for the most part I see excellent use of lesser assets and timely acquisitions of big contributors. The Canucks can and should improve in those areas and it might well be enough to craft a Cup winning team from in addition to what they already have; on the flip side of the coin many teams draft high and never go on to win it all.

 

[BobbyJazzLegs]

Sadly, you're probably right, for the wrong reason. Gillis would probably keep this mediocrity ******** going hoping for their scout and prospect development to step their game up big time... But as we all know, drafting well is tough and requires luck, and our prospect development in the minors hasn't been exactly a forte. Let's say we get lucky and draft a few good players in mid-first round, they still likely won't be ready to make an impact until the Sedins are DONE. Best case scenario, we take a Logan Couture in the teens. He still won't be ready to hit the big league until 2016/17. Even if we assume the prospect develops at light speed and is ready by 2015, it's likely said prospect still won't find his groove until a couple years down the road.

Gillis's reasoning for doing this **** would be to maintain ticket sales, and his reasoning to the public would be some crap along the lines of we want to improve while staying competitive. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping to god he doesn't do the above, but instead go with my proposal.

I advocate for tanking the rest of this season and ideally the next while stocking up on as many 2014/15 firsts as possible
1. Without trading any one of the Sedins, Hamhuis, and Garrison.
2. Tanev, Stanton, Corrado, Kassian, and Lack will not be moved for anything short of an overpayment.
3. Open season on everyone else, acquire multiple blue chip prospects through the draft. Ideally Kesler, Edler, Luongo and Bieksa are moved for a combination of
a. A top 3 2014 first
b. A 2015 first from a middling team or an aging team
c. ELC players ready to make instant impact, pending RFA acceptable if player is of higher calibre
4. Start icing NHL-ready prospects drafted earlier on in Horvat, Shinkaruk, Gaunce, Fox, Jensen, Subban, Hutton.

I did this for the sake of discussion, as I know it's not a strong predictor of the future, but at least it's a reference point. None of it may happen, this is just a best case scenario.


We will be absolutely dreadful in 2014-15, that's for sure, but we'll essentially do what Colorado did. They took MacKinnon, Landeskog and Duchene (1st, 2nd and 3rd overall picks). The higher we draft, the sooner the prospect will be ready.

We'll do what they did in just 1.5 season, while retaining the integral part of the team's core in the Sedins, Hamhuis and Garrison.

All of this is done through the following hypothetical moves:

One or two of Edler, Bieksa and Kesler for a top 3 first this year
The Canucks tanking it this year and end up around 25/26th
The Canucks tanking it hard the following year, finishing dead last
Canucks icing their physically ready prospects, not afraid to let them make mistakes and let them develop quicker

Essentially this is where I'm at right now. It's not about tanking for the sake of tanking, it's about capitalizing on a bad year as much as possible i.e. stocking up on youth when we have our chance. We hang on to a core that has the potential to rebound in a big way and we infuse the lineup with high end young guys. This could definitely give us a chance to remain a relevant team (i.e. 7th - 10th in the conference).

Who knows, we could land one of the big FA's in this off season or next and be ready to pounce in 15/16.