Tank or re-tool on the fly?

[DarrenX]

@DarrenX: Lmao. Doughty not a franchise player? Guess 2 Stanley Cups in 3 years is not good enough.

Congratulations, you completely missed my point. Dwight King has two cups with the Kings too... is *he* a franchise player?

wtf? Doughty is the definition of a Franchise player. Kopitar is also a Franchise player. Hes as good if not better than Toews.

Wow, how many "Franchise Players" are there in the league, anyway? Sounds like there must be about 40 of them. (Let's see, according to the Norris committee, Chara/Weber/Keith are all better than Doughty. Certainly Subban/Suter/Pietrangelo are there too. What about Karlsson? So that's at least 8 franchise defencemen alone. For what it's worth, TSN has Doughty at #20 of their defence rankings.)

If that's your definition of "franchise player", fine. They are practically growing on trees and it should be no trouble to get one.

And of course, the POINT was not that we don't need good players, but that you don't need to tank to get a franchise player. Kopitar was picked at 11 (as I'm sure you'll all recall). Look at the rest of the Kings core: NONE of the rest are high Kings draft picks.

 

[realist99]

Sure...
Benning came from Boston...
And Boston won because it made good trades...
And drafted well.
However...
Is it solely because of Benning?
How much did he contributed to Boston's success?
Nobody really knows.

At the end of the day...
He is still a rookie GM...
Without any track records.
Where he came from does not dictate future success...
And it means absolutely nothing...
Unless he can show results.

I will give Benning the benefit of the doubt for now...
But I do not like any of his moves.
I hope I am completely wrong...
And he proves to be smarter than me.

I didn't mean to imply they won because of Benning.

My point was just that they got where they are without tanking Edmonton style. They don't have a top 5 pick on their roster (they did have one with Seguin who they traded). They only have 5 first rounders on their roster...only one of which they drafted.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

There's a huge difference between what these 2 teams did.

The problem with the Oilers is that they decided to go completely with their youth and didn't have veterans to help guide the team and mentor the young. The Pens had a lot of vets on their roster when Crosby and Malkin first came in - they learned from seasoned vets - led of course by Lemieux, but that team also had Recchi, Palffy, Gonchar, and Leclair.

The Oilers thought they could just let their youth run with it and develop on their own... and then made things even worse by recycling rookie coaches to guide them. This is why even with their most talented players you see holes in their games.

The proper way to rebuild, IMO, is to have good leaders and respected vets around for your youth to lean on - and not to stack the roster with young players, but bring them in gradually learning from the vets. This is what we saw in Pittsburgh.. what we always see in Detroit, what we've seen in the past in Colorado (though they are a very young roster this time around).

Teams that seemed to be forever stuck in rebuild, like the Oilers, or Thrashers in the past, or Isles, etc, seem to focus so much to finding as many spots for their up and comers that they ignore the importance of having good veteran leaders to help that development process. Don't want to see the Canucks caught in that cycle. The Sedins, Hamhuis, Bieksa - these guys are going to be invaluable IMO in helping the next wave develop.

Pittsburgh also added vets like Roberts, Ruutu, Ekman, Sykora, Sydor, Guerin, Satan, Gill, Boucher, Eaton... through-out Crosby's first 4 seasons.

 

[nameless1]

the Pens got lucky - really lucky - that they happened to have their worst years when Crosby and Malkin were available. But you don't need that top pick to land in your lap to build a franchise that way.

Look at Detroit. It's the same thing with them. They didn't get a top pick they could groom, but had top veteran leaders to help develop their youth, and of course have a great scouting and development team to find and develop those gems. That's a more realistic goal for Vancouver. Invest in those areas and you'll find those gems eventually.

Colorado was in a similar situation for many years. They didn't get their top pick until recently, but won their Cups thanks to vets leading the way - that weren't drafted first overall.

New Jersey had a similar program for years.

Young talented players develop better when they have guys like Lemieux, Yzerman, Sakic, Stevens, Niedermayer, etc to learn from. Hell we saw that first hand in Vancouver with the impact that Mats Sundin had on the Sedins and Kesler - all of whom have said that Sundin had a big impact on their overall development into star players.

That's the culture I hope the Canucks can create for their prospects coming up. That's why I'd love to see Iginla signed here (though I doubt there's any chance he will). I think the impact he could have on Kassian, Jensen, Gaunce, Horvat, etc could be significant.

Quebec had high picks for many years...
And it drafted Lindros.
That subsequent Lindros trade laid the foundation for a championship team...
And the trade for Roy pushed them over the top.
I understand your argument...
But Colorado's road to success is more similar to Pittsburgh.
Both teams got very lucky to have drafted a franchise player.

 

[DCantheDDad]

Regardless of what people want, this team will never purposely go out and lose games. It seems like Benning is running some kind of hybrid re-tool, get younger, re-build thing, that might actually be the best option.

 

[mrmyheadhurts]

there is talk with the GM's wanting to change the draft lotto to one ball per team, meaning finishing 1st or last you still have the same chance at getting the number 1 pick. the idea is to stop rewarding teams for running their clubs into the ground.

I don't think playoff teams should be in the running. I would break it down like this:

17th - 20th place - 1 ball
21st - 24th place - 2 balls
25th - 30th place - 3 balls

No limit on how far you can fall or how high up you can go. Just a straight lottery with the worst teams getting better odds but still potentially not getting a high pick. Would make for pretty damn compelling television as well.

16th place team to 1st place team simply pick in order after the top 17 is picked, they have no chance at the #1 pick, raising or falling.

I am assuming this is so simple it is stupid, so fire away!

 

[groov2]

As I wrote on the main board:

I don't understand this concept of being a terrible team so you can be good in the future. Who wants to watch their team lose year after year to hope for the potential of being good one day? I used to get excited for my Edmonton buddies and their future team (and give them a hard time), but now I more or less just feel bad for them because it has been so lousy for them for so long. It's such a shame because Edmontonians are such great fans; I'm not so sure we are as faithful a fan base.

On any team I played for or coached, the entire concept is to be good on a year to year basis; a season is very long. Draft well, develop well, infuse youth into the lineup, all while having solid veterans who lead by example. Before you know it, you will have young players who want to be better than their predecessors, wanting to take leadership roles and push for a championship.

Signing UFA's might not win us a Stanley Cup (then again, who knows, because nothing else has worked!), but it will keep the organizational modus operandi to have a winning culture. I remember the couple winning teams I was traded to in Junior and the second you walk into the rink, you feel it, and you immediately get a boost. I want all the young players coming in and feeling the same thing in the Canucks organization.

On top of this, as a former player, it's not fun at all to go to the rink when your team loses all the time; honestly, life sucks when this happens. Let the Canucks come to the rink and have fun; players can't get sold on signing with the Oilers because losing isn't fun. Fun is the most important thing sports, and if the players are not having fun, it's a downhill spiral.

As long as young players have a chance to come in and show their stuff and potentially earn a job, I'm okay with signing players if it means that the team will still compete and be good and uphold the Canuck winning culture.

 

[MrShift4]

Tank Oiler style????

Really???? Oiler style????

Did OP even read what he wrote???? LOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Takumi3000]

the Pens got lucky - really lucky - that they happened to have their worst years when Crosby and Malkin were available. But you don't need that top pick to land in your lap to build a franchise that way.

Look at Detroit. It's the same thing with them. They didn't get a top pick they could groom, but had top veteran leaders to help develop their youth, and of course have a great scouting and development team to find and develop those gems. That's a more realistic goal for Vancouver. Invest in those areas and you'll find those gems eventually.

Colorado was in a similar situation for many years. They didn't get their top pick until recently, but won their Cups thanks to vets leading the way - that weren't drafted first overall.

New Jersey had a similar program for years.

Young talented players develop better when they have guys like Lemieux, Yzerman, Sakic, Stevens, Niedermayer, etc to learn from. Hell we saw that first hand in Vancouver with the impact that Mats Sundin had on the Sedins and Kesler - all of whom have said that Sundin had a big impact on their overall development into star players.

That's the culture I hope the Canucks can create for their prospects coming up. That's why I'd love to see Iginla signed here (though I doubt there's any chance he will). I think the impact he could have on Kassian, Jensen, Gaunce, Horvat, etc could be significant.

Penguins were lucky. But I think the fact that we have our worst team in a long time coincidentally during a draft that includes the likes of McDavid, Eichel, etc. means we have a chance to get lucky as well.

Again I completely agree with you that young players develop better with veteran leadership in place. It's a smoother ease into a role as a developing player.

But I gotta say. The Colorado and Detroit teams that won all the cups...they got their elite talent from 2 places. Unlimited salary cap and unique situations.

Colorado stock piled all their talent from years of misery as Quebec Nordiques. Winning the Cup the first year they moved would indicate their rebuild was finally complete (those poor Quebec fans ). Detroit drafts late gems like Lidstrom (rd3), Datsyuk (rd6), Zetterburg (rd7). Can other teams do this? Yes but it won't be easy. You need great scouts and a great development system. Vancouver is a long way from this.

 

[realist99]

I don't think playoff teams should be in the running. I would break it down like this:

17th - 20th place - 1 ball
21st - 24th place - 2 balls
25th - 30th place - 3 balls

No limit on how far you can fall or how high up you can go. Just a straight lottery with the worst teams getting better odds but still potentially not getting a high pick. Would make for pretty damn compelling television as well.

16th place team to 1st place team simply pick in order after the top 17 is picked, they have no chance at the #1 pick, raising or falling.

I am assuming this is so simple it is stupid, so fire away!

The problem is, no matter how small the advantage, teams are still being rewarded by finishing lower.

IMO all non playoff teams should be given 1 ball only. All non playoff teams are slotted with those balls.

 

[Wilch]

Can't we tank Chicago or Colorado style?

I hate that tanking is exclusively associated with the Oilers.

 

[mrmyheadhurts]

The problem is, no matter how small the advantage, teams are still being rewarded by finishing lower.

IMO all non playoff teams should be given 1 ball only. All non playoff teams are slotted with those balls.

I was just thinking how funny it would be if I reversed the odds, meaning: The higher you finish but still miss the playoffs, the higher your odds of getting 1st overall. So:

17th - 20th place - 3 ball
21st - 24th place - 2 balls
25th - 30th place - 1 balls

Obviously there is no way the NHL would allow this, a bad team would probably just stay bad forever and the fan base would be completely defeated but it sure would prevent tanking! Still a funny concept though.

 

[Takumi3000]

Congratulations, you completely missed my point. Dwight King has two cups with the Kings too... is *he* a franchise player?



Wow, how many "Franchise Players" are there in the league, anyway? Sounds like there must be about 40 of them. (Let's see, according to the Norris committee, Chara/Weber/Keith are all better than Doughty. Certainly Subban/Suter/Pietrangelo are there too. What about Karlsson? So that's at least 8 franchise defencemen. For what it's worth, TSN has Doughty at #20 of their defence rankings.)

If that's your definition of "franchise player", fine. They are practically growing on trees and it should be no trouble to get one.

And of course, the POINT was not that we don't need good players, but that you don't need to tank to get a franchise player. Kopitar was picked at 11 (as I'm sure you'll all recall). Look at the rest of the Kings core: NONE of the rest are high Kings draft picks.

Did you just compare Dwight King to LA's #1 Defencemen? You do know players have different severity of roles on their teams right?

So if the Hawks win the cup. Toews is not a franchise player? Cause Ben Eager also got the cup ring. Am I doing this right?

Franchise players mean the best of the best. What better players are fit for that title after the ones that play the most important roles for their teams that have recently won multiple stanley cups?

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

i dont want to tank "oilers style", but I would like to tank this upcomming season, then get back to trying to be competitive

The only thing with that is that it's pretty hard to be absolutely terrible one year and then the next year go back to being a playoff team.

I mean, sometimes that happens to teams - like Colorado - but it's very difficult to plan that out. Colorado was not expecting to finish at the bottom of the standings for as long as they.

And if we want to ensure that we pick very high in the draft we pretty much have to trade away all our great players. Like the Sedins. But then once we do that... who knows if we'll be able to become a good team again in the next 5-10 years. So basically, it actually COULD be an Oilers-style "rebuild"... that lasts for 20 years. And obviously no one wants that.


On the other hand, the problem with trying to patch up a hole that is too big to patch up is that it leaks forever. Maybe only a little bit, but do you want to be "Ok" forever, or tear the roof down and rebuild the damn thing?


Very tough decisions for Mr. Benning. (or maybe the decision is easy for him to make, but making the right decision will be difficult).

 

[Tim McCracken]

Can't we tank Chicago or Colorado style?

I hate that tanking is exclusively associated with the Oilers.

You too, eh? Ok, ok I should have used a bold RISK in the my original post and poll. Avalanche missed the playoffs for 3 years straight and 5 of 7, do you think Canucks fans can take that? What if it was a bad RISK and went Oilers style?

And Chicago missed the playoffs 5 straight years and 9 out of 10 before the low picks and other moves paid off. You really think Canucks fans could take that?

 

[Royal Canuck]

Tanking has some serious risk considering you only have a 25% chance of getting 1st overall even if the tank is successful.

 

[Ventana*]

Tanking has some serious risk considering you only have a 25% chance of getting 1st overall even if the tank is successful.

Yeah, but even if you don't get the 1st overall pick in this year's draft, you can pickup a guy that will probably be just as good as McDavid in Eichel. Not a big loss, haha. This draft is stacked.

 

[Takumi3000]

Yeah, but even if you don't get the 1st overall pick in this year's draft, you can pickup a guy that will probably be just as good as McDavid in Eichel. Not a big loss, haha. This draft is stacked.

Exactly. The 2015 draft is loaded with elite talent. Winning the lottery would be nice but its not necessary.

 

[mrmyheadhurts]

It's funny, I think the Quebec Nordiques 3 first overalls in a row were a big reason for the introduction of the draft lottery in 1995. Now I think the Oilers and their 3 first overalls are the motivation for levelling the lottery chances a bit more.

The only other team that came close to that spectacular level of ineptitude were the early-mid 90s Ottawa Senators.

What makes the Oilers such a special and historical example of "suck" is that they somehow managed to accomplish this in the cap era. In my opinion, for the past 5 years they have been the most inept organization in all of North American Professional Sports and it's a run for the history books as far as I'm concerned.

So yeah, let's not use the Oilers as an example of how to do anything. Their only model is losing.

 

[ddawg1950]

Would never tank Oiler style.

Maybe, at most, gagnam style.

 

[cooker24]

Tanking has some serious risk considering you only have a 25% chance of getting 1st overall even if the tank is successful.

25% chance is fine by me! I'd prefer the Canucks have a reasonable chance at first or second than no chance. Plus, in this draft, losing out on first isn't quite the devastating blow that it could be in other drafts. Finish dead last, take your 25% chance, and hope for McDavid and don't lose much sleep over the fact that you're going to get Eichel with the second selection.

 

[pahlsson]

don't see how retooling would work, too big of an age gap between our vets and the younger players that project to have an impact

really need a "bridge" player between the two groups, like a couture or something

 

[vanarchy]

Do the Kings have a "franchise player"? Sure, Doughty's pretty good but he's not really a 'franchise player'... he didn't even get a Norris nomination. None of the rest of their core came as high first round picks IIRC.

I'd say the Kings don't have a franchise player in the sense you're thinking of, but it doesn't seem to be holding them back much.

Not sure if serious. Doughty is very much a franchise player. And even if he wasn't, Quick is.

 

[Wilch]

You too, eh? Ok, ok I should have used a bold RISK in the my original post and poll. Avalanche missed the playoffs for 3 years straight and 5 of 7, do you think Canucks fans can take that? What if it was a bad RISK and went Oilers style?

And Chicago missed the playoffs 5 straight years and 9 out of 10 before the low picks and other moves paid off. You really think Canucks fans could take that?

The problem I have with the Oilers has nothing to do with the length of the abyss, but rather how they mis-managed their assets and decisions during the tank.

- Did not sign veterans.
- Did not draft the right players - should have traded down a spot or two to avoid redundancy.
- Traded away two way guys like Smid for nil.
- Poor coach signings, turnover too high.

 

[nameless1]

I didn't mean to imply they won because of Benning.

My point was just that they got where they are without tanking Edmonton style. They don't have a top 5 pick on their roster (they did have one with Seguin who they traded). They only have 5 first rounders on their roster...only one of which they drafted.

I looked back at the Bruins seasons since 2006...
And I can definitely see the similarities.

When Chiarelli came before that 2006/07 season...
The team had gotten rid of Joe Thornton a couple of months before...
And the team had a top 5 pick...
Which it used to draft Kessel.
In the same draft...
Boston also got Lucic and Marchand...
And it traded Raycroft for Rask.
Then the team signed Chara and Savard in the summer.

The team still sucked though...
And Boston got the 8th overall pick next year.
It did nothing with it...
But the earlier draft picks and acquisitions...
Such as Krejci and Thomas...
From the previous regime...
Had started to pay dividends.
Marco Strum also proved to be a capable goal scorer...
And Brad Stuart is a dependable top-4.
Next year...
They barely sneaked into the playoffs...
But they never looked back since then.

2006 was the turning point.
I have looked back at Boston's draft since that draft...
And Boston drafted rather poorly in all these years.
The only thing that saved Boston was that it made very good trades...
Such as the one for Seidenberg and Matt Bartkowski...
Who they acquired for a 2nd, Bitz and Weller...
And the Kessel trade...
Which gave the team a lot of futures.
They also got Wheeler...
The 5th overall pick in 2004...
Who Spurned the Coyotes and signed with the Bruins...
And they used him to acquire Peverley.

Yes...
Boston did not tank...
But it is not correct that it did not have high picks.
It just mostly used those very well.
It also got very lucky...
As it got 4 very important pieces at the 2006 draft...
And it was able to sign a franchise defenseman...
Who almost never comes onto market...
From free agency.
Then the team added important pieces through smart trades in subsequent years.

Now...
In regards to the Canucks...
The questions are...
Is Benning's 2014 draft comparable to Boston's 2006 draft?
Will the prospects they have now step up eventually?
Is there a franchise altering player in free agency?
Will the Canucks be able to get him?
Will he be able to make smart trades...
And get the pieces for a championship team?

Sure...
It will take years to know...
And while I cannot answer questions 1 and 2 yet...
Questions 3 and 4 are definitely a no.
Question 4 is interesting...
Because while I think it is a no...
Since Benning appeared to have bled assets at every turn...
And I did not like any of the trades...
It is way too early...
So I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now...
And say it is undetermined yet.

In consideration of everything...
I just think the situations are too different.
Plus...
That Boston model is mostly a fluke...
And it got very, very lucky...
Even in trades...
I will argue.
I honestly do not think it can be copied.

Again...
While I am not optimistic about the team's future...
I do hope that I am wrong...
And Benning is able to copy to do what Boston had done.