The Rebuild Started...

[nuck luck]

You guys won't be able to change my mind because what you guys are saying is not true. One user said if you trade draft picks for a struggling early 20 year old. If it pays off then it's a good rebuilding move. So you guys are just looking at the results of the transaction to determine if it good rebuild move. So the reality we are debating how good GM Benning is and not if Canucks are rebuilding.

Ask yourself this question you got rid of old core and now you are building a young new core. How is that not a rebuild?

How do you come up with these arguments？

Benning and Linden did what all arrogant GMs do，they replace the core without thinking of the team first. They want to prove themselves and put their stamp on the team. Stupid，desperate and ignorant fools rush into decisions like this. Selfish motives and a need for recogntion overides all common sense.

Replacing an old core does not mean a team is in rebuild...especially so if the new core of players are miller，dorsett，and the rest of the 'character' players they traded for and picked up.

Ask yourself this question, you just got your dad's old set of golf clubs. However, some of the irons and woods are getting old so you decide to replace them with other clubs that are second-hand. Are you simply replacing your set of clubs or are you rebuilding a new set?

 

[Canucks1096]

How do you come up with these arguments？

Benning and Linden did what all arrogant GMs do，they replace the core without thinking of the team first. They want to prove themselves and put their stamp on the team. Stupid，desperate and ignorant fools rush into decisions like this. Selfish motives and a need for recogntion overides all common sense.

Replacing an old core does not mean a team is in rebuild...especially so if the new core of players are miller，dorsett，and the rest of the 'character' players they traded for and picked up.

Ask yourself this question, you just got your dad's old set of golf clubs. However, some of the irons and woods are getting old so you decide to replace them with other clubs that are second-hand. Are you simply replacing your set of clubs or are you rebuilding a new set?

You are talking about 2014. I am not talking about 2014.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Except I did and you ignored it (Stecher). And for this year there's no room for Goldobin, Leipsic, Dahlen. Or really no room for Hughes or Juolevi. And MDZ's signing seems to have hurt Hutton's development.

No, they didn't sign any big name scorers, but they did sign two veterans to long-term contracts with bloated salaries. There's more to trying to make the playoffs than who they sign in free agency. In 2015 they kept the aging veteran Ryan Miller and traded Lack instead, and they traded for Brandon Sutter. They also traded for Prust. Benning said numerous times he felt he had a playoff team. 2017 they signed several veterans as well. Some (Gagner) to a 3-year contract. That's medium term.

That long first post I wrote a few weeks ago was based on reality. Just because that reality isn't compatible with the narrative you want to portray doesn't mean it's any less real.

MDZ's signing has hurt Huttons development...?...was MDZ responsible for Hutton being out of shape?..More 'doom and gloom' prophecies..?

 

[nuck luck]

So what would a Kesler trade look like if it was a strictly a rebuild trade?

Trade for picks and prospects only, possibly players who are 1 or 2 years into their nhl careers.

I apologize if Im sounding aggressive, but you really need to analyze the situation and look at things from all sides before coming to a conclusion. If the information differs from your initial thoughts than you have to rethink things through and include all arguments in your thought process.

You cant just continue with the same assumptions ignoring all logic.

 

[Canucks1096]

Most of you don't think the Canucks are rebuilding because there not getting enough picks. So ask yourself this question did other rebuilding teams got better because they stacked up on picks? The answer is No. I will give you guys some examples. Let's look at the top 5/6 Forwards on the team and 3 top D on some rebuilding teams when the rebuild was done

Jets top 5 F. Schefiele Laine Connor Ehlers Wheeler. Top 3 D Buff Trouba Morrisey. 6 of them were drafted in the 1st round with their own picks and two of them was traded for

Oilers top 5 F Mcdavid Eberle Drasitil RNH Lucic. Top 3 D Nurse Kelebom Larson. 1 free agent 1 trade and 5 first round picks. All of the first picks was from the Oilers except Kelebom. Kelebom pick they got back from the Penner trade however they give up to 1st to get Penner. This one I am not going to count.

Leafs top 5 F Nylander Matthews Marner Kadri JVR. Top 3 D Gardiner Rielly Hainsey. 5 first round picks and 2 trades and 1 FA.

Pits. This rebuild is a lot different from other rebuild. This rebuild was successful because they won the Crosby Lottery and 2nd overall pick in 2004 that was a generational player. Pits stacked on picks but they didnt do much with those picks.

I would say Kings and Hawks took advantage of those extra picks but the main core was still drafted by their own picks.

So this generalization that you must load up on picks is not true. I am not saying picks are not important but its not necessary to load up on picks and just use that as mainly the only resource to fill out your roster. You can fill out your roster by trade and free agent too.

 

[nuck luck]

You are talking about 2014. I am not talking about 2014.

Problem is that we havent really acquired many picks in all of our transactions thus far. At best, we have acquired prospects that are at risk of waivers (who we could have picked up on waivers for free). We are forced to play them now regardless ...because our GM refuses to lose face and admit he screwed up, and the absurdity of this would be compounded if he lost these players after sending them down.

Look at the players this mgt has picked up...how do you consider these moves a rebuild?

Im not talking about 2014 only, Im looking at the history of this mgt up to now.

 

[Canucks1096]

Trade for picks and prospects only, possibly players who are 1 or 2 years into their nhl careers.

I apologize if Im sounding aggressive, but you really need to analyze the situation and look at things from all sides before coming to a conclusion. If the information differs from your initial thoughts than you have to rethink things through and include all arguments in your thought process.

You cant just continue with the same assumptions ignoring all logic.

Bonino had 2 and 1/2 seasons and Sbisa had 3 and 1/2 seasons in the nhl. So I guess 1/2 season to and 1 and 1/2 season changes the meaning from rebuilding trade to a non rebuilding trade. So It's not rebuilding for you be cause your opinion is very precise.

Interesting. I never heard of that logic before. Fyi the lockout season is the half season.

What assumption am I making?

So when do you clear out the old core and trying a build a new young core

A when you are chasing the cup
B trying to make playoffs
C Retooling
D rebuild.

I thunk you know the answer. It's a different story when they are replacing old core with an old core but there not

 

[Bleach Clean]

Even Keith was a second round pick. Hawks used their own 2nd round pick. They didn't get Keith because They had a lot of picks that year and lucky with him.

If Goldobin was ready he should have no problem making the team then.

Zetterberg and Datsyuk was add it to the existing core of Yzerman Shanahan Fedorov and Hull first. Wings didn't dump everyone when Zetterberg and Datsyuk came. That was considered a retool

So you're saying a retool is when a team drafts it's new core without dumping the existing core. Is that the difference between a retool and rebuild?

You said that Goldobin was ready. If he should have no problem making the team, then you expect him on the roster after camp, yes?

Let me get this straight: I tell you that Keith was a late 2nd round pick himself. Thereby proving the importance of depth picks. You say that he was picked by CHI's own 2nd, so extra picks were not needed. Do you realize that this does nothing to refute the importance of depth picks? It doesn't matter that the player is picked with the team's original pick or with an acquired pick. the important part is having the pick to choose a player. Does that really have to be explained?

Hugh difference main core is the top elite players. Those players you need to draft. Secondary core is like a Hansen. A Hansen you can trade and get it in free agent.

No no no we are talking about draft picks. Players that came through the system has nothing to do with draft. Those should not be use in your argument. So if you are treating those non draft picks.that came up the system like draft picks. that means Baer Granlund and Goldobin and Dahlen I can considered them as draft picks as well.

So the last 10 to 15 years some teams that went on a rebuild Hawks Kings Pens Leafs Jets Tampa Oilers. So tell me the extra picks that these teams got in trades. What are some good players that these teams got with those picks?

This is how faulty your argument is: You see depth picks as important only when the team uses its own pick to draft a player. For instance, if Keith had been drafted 45th overall via an acquired pick, and not 54th overall like he was, this would validate the importance of acquiring a 2nd rounder. As in, it's not enough that Keith was in fact drafted with a 2nd rounder, period. That doesn't make all 2nd rounders important, it only makes default team assigned 2nd rounders important. Simply absurd.

In order to show you how absurd, I'm going to play along so you have nothing to stand on:

Focusing on CHI alone:
- Saad was acquired via CGY's 2nd round pick (#43 overall)
- Danault was WSH's 1st round pick (#26 overall)
- DeBrincat from MTL's 2nd round pick (#39 overall)
- Jokiharju from a trade back with DAL, picking up #70 as well (#29 overall)
- Forsling, which had just been drafted #126 for Clendenning.
- Bickell was a LA 4th round pick.
- Hjarlmarsson was NYI's #108 pick.
- Ben Smith was OTT's 6th round pick in 2008 (#169)

It's extremely odd that you hold the position that you do on acquired vs. non-acquired picks. The heat of the matter is: Get depth picks, some of them yield great assets and you don't know if those assets will be had from the picks you own or the ones you acquire.

 

[F A N]

I think this whole "when did the rebuild start" is pretty much irrelevant. We know that this regime even now has not been about accumulating draft picks. But for whatever missed opportunities there were, the Canucks have been drafting relatively high and could have been higher if not for bad draft lottery luck. And even in the year they made the playoffs, they drafted Boeser.

My point is that it is what it is at this point. Rebuild or retool are more or less words for this regime.

 

[Melvin]

I think this whole "when did the rebuild start" is pretty much irrelevant. We know that this regime even now has not been about accumulating draft picks. But for whatever missed opportunities there were, the Canucks have been drafting relatively high and could have been higher if not for bad draft lottery luck. And even in the year they made the playoffs, they drafted Boeser.

My point is that it is what it is at this point. Rebuild or retool are more or less words for this regime.

You don't think it's relevant to establish what was their objectives and measure them based on whether or not they met their objectives?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Most of you don't think the Canucks are rebuilding because there not getting enough picks. So ask yourself this question did other rebuilding teams got better because they stacked up on picks? The answer is No. I will give you guys some examples. Let's look at the top 5/6 Forwards on the team and 3 top D on some rebuilding teams when the rebuild was done

...

So this generalization that you must load up on picks is not true. I am not saying picks are not important but its not necessary to load up on picks and just use that as mainly the only resource to fill out your roster. You can fill out your roster by trade and free agent too.

A few things:

1. You are misrepresenting the argument by saying "the only resource to fill out your roster". It should be the main source, but it's not the only source.

2. The top end of a rebuild is primarily 1st round picks. Wow, what a shocker? Does this eliminate the need to get value out of the remaining rounds. Obviously, not. You somehow thought it did though... Subban, Weber, Josi, Bergeron, Chara, Krejci and on and on. Depth picks absolutely matter.

3. This narrative of not needing to load up on picks is complete tripe. The best argument you've made here is to say that team's need to hit on their own picks only. Really? Like do you yourself actually believe this argument? Do you think teams go into drafts and tense up when they make their own picks and then loosen up when making picks they acquired, simply because they are acquired and do not matter as much?

Do you actually believe that acquired picks are distinctly different from assigned picks?

 

[F A N]

You don't think it's relevant to establish what was their objectives and measure them based on whether or not they met their objectives?

I do think it's relevant. But there are different ways to rebuild and there are different ways to retool. Retooling for a Stanley Cup champion with a young core might mean trading vets for draft picks because they can sign free agents and compete again. To a team that sucks that would be considered rebuilding.

All I am saying is that at this point, the current regime is evaluated primarily by two things: 1) their drafts/development of their draft picks and 2) their success on the ice. Those two things might correlate at the end but are you still evaluating based on how their moves fit their rebuild description? They tried to retool on the fly. They failed. Now it's all about the future. They certainly haven't been making moves that you can say make them playoff contenders. Beagle and Roussell aren't going to carry a team to the playoffs and they aren't selling them as such. The evaluation is whether the team is heading in the right direction and that has a lot to do with how good the guys this regime drafted are IMO.

 

[Canucks1096]

So you're saying a retool is when a team drafts it's new core without dumping the existing core. Is that the difference between a retool and rebuild?

You said that Goldobin was ready. If he should have no problem making the team, then you expect him on the roster after camp, yes?

Let me get this straight: I tell you that Keith was a late 2nd round pick himself. Thereby proving the importance of depth picks. You say that he was picked by CHI's own 2nd, so extra picks were not needed. Do you realize that this does nothing to refute the importance of depth picks? It doesn't matter that the player is picked with the team's original pick or with an acquired pick. the important part is having the pick to choose a player. Does that really have to be explained?





This is how faulty your argument is: You see depth picks as important only when the team uses its own pick to draft a player. For instance, if Keith had been drafted 45th overall via an acquired pick, and not 54th overall like he was, this would validate the importance of acquiring a 2nd rounder. As in, it's not enough that Keith was in fact drafted with a 2nd rounder, period. That doesn't make all 2nd rounders important, it only makes default team assigned 2nd rounders important. Simply absurd.

In order to show you how absurd, I'm going to play along so you have nothing to stand on:

Focusing on CHI alone:
- Saad was acquired via CGY's 2nd round pick (#43 overall)
- Danault was WSH's 1st round pick (#26 overall)
- DeBrincat from MTL's 2nd round pick (#39 overall)
- Jokiharju from a trade back with DAL, picking up #70 as well (#29 overall)
- Forsling, which had just been drafted #126 for Clendenning.
- Bickell was a LA 4th round pick.
- Hjarlmarsson was NYI's #108 pick.
- Ben Smith was OTT's 6th round pick in 2008 (#169)

It's extremely odd that you hold the position that you do on acquired vs. non-acquired picks. The heat of the matter is: Get depth picks, some of them yield great assets and you don't know if those assets will be had from the picks you own or the ones you acquire.

The Goldobin thing. I am not even going to answer that. See like we are speaking 2 different languages.

Rebuild is more extreme. You are going to complete make over of the core. Retool just minor adjustment. Bos was considered a retool.

Sorry Maybe I am confuse. I have so many debates but the original argument you said we should acquire more picks because more chance to get an nhl player but the Keith pick. Regardless of How many picks They would of Pick Keith. Keith should be excluded.

I wonder why you decided to use the Hawks as an example and not Pens Leafs oilers Jets. Is it because to make your presentation a look more sexy? In the above I did say Hawks took advantage of getting those extra picks.

So hawks got a lot of struggling young player from trades Sharp Ladd Versteeg Leddy. So why are drafting them are better than acquiring young players?

At times Benning Prefer to trade for early 20 year old. Dahlen (19 year old) Goldobin Baer Granlund Pedan Vey Etem. Benning likes this approach. How is getting a few more picks better than this approach? Dahlen is probably our best prospects that wasn't a 1st round pick. From 2014 to 2017 we don't have anybody drafting outside of the 1st round that's on the roster right now.

I completely get what you are saying but there no clear evidence to suggest is better you draft the rest of rosters vs other methods.

It's just silly he likes to get early 20 year old instead of Pick at times. Him doing that is not a rebuild. Hawks example show you can get a good young player by using that approach.

 

[nuck luck]

Bonino had 2 and 1/2 seasons and Sbisa had 3 and 1/2 seasons in the nhl. So I guess 1/2 season to and 1 and 1/2 season changes the meaning from rebuilding trade to a non rebuilding trade. So It's not rebuilding for you be cause your opinion is very precise.

Interesting. I never heard of that logic before. Fyi the lockout season is the half season.

What assumption am I making?

So when do you clear out the old core and trying a build a new young core

A when you are chasing the cup
B trying to make playoffs
C Retooling
D rebuild.

I thunk you know the answer. It's a different story when they are replacing old core with an old core but there not

If you noticed, in my post I said 'possibly' players in their 1st or 2nd year. Not 'any' player in his 1st or 2nd year... AND definitely not anyone 3.5 years in with no inclination of improving.

'if' there was a bonifide star that was being traded because of his attitude or commitment (like seguin), that was young and you can pick him up for less than his real worth, by all means you do so (however, there are few head scouts left in the league who are dense enough to push a trade like seguins). If it requires a kings ransom, including multiple high draft picks than walk away...continue with building through the draft. If the main trading piece is a player like Eriksson at 29 years of age, you do so without question.

Does that seem logical enough for you?

If you ignore key words in a sentence than you dont comprehend the true meaning...get it now?

Ive read a lot of your posts and Im not surprised by your response... you find 1 thing that supports your point of view and thats all it takes for you to believe you were correct all along. You continue to ignore all logic and still argue the worlds flat.

You quote one person (without providing evidence) and believe that everything else is 'fake news' and everyone who disagrees with you wrote that quote.

You misread or ignore key points from others and focus on irrelevant points that only fit your agenda. Not unlike the anti-vaccine groups I have encountered...

The bolded part...what are you going on about?

 

[Canucks1096]

A few things:

1. You are misrepresenting the argument by saying "the only resource to fill out your roster". It should be the main source, but it's not the only source.

2. The top end of a rebuild is primarily 1st round picks. Wow, what a shocker? Does this eliminate the need to get value out of the remaining rounds. Obviously, not. You somehow thought it did though... Subban, Weber, Josi, Bergeron, Chara, Krejci and on and on. Depth picks absolutely matter.

3. This narrative of not needing to load up on picks is complete tripe. The best argument you've made here is to say that team's need to hit on their own picks only. Really? Like do you yourself actually believe this argument? Do you think teams go into drafts and tense up when they make their own picks and then loosen up when making picks they acquired, simply because they are acquired and do not matter as much?

Do you actually believe that acquired picks are distinctly different from assigned picks?

I can play this game as well. These are some young players that got traded at a young age. Forsberg Ladd Sharp Versteeg Leddy Mcdonaugh, Naslund, Amonte, Weight, sequin, Chara, Hull, Bishop, Moulson, Palamri. Most of them were traded for a Vets or picks at a young age.

 

[Canucks1096]

If you noticed, in my post I said 'possibly' players in their 1st or 2nd year. Not 'any' player in his 1st or 2nd year... AND definitely not anyone 3.5 years in with no inclination of improving.

'if' there was a bonifide star that was being traded because of his attitude or commitment (like seguin), that was young and you can pick him up for less than his real worth, by all means you do so (however, there are few head scouts left in the league who are dense enough to push a trade like seguins). If it requires a kings ransom, including multiple high draft picks than walk away...continue with building through the draft. If the main trading piece is a player like Eriksson at 29 years of age, you do so without question.

Does that seem logical enough for you?

If you ignore key words in a sentence than you dont comprehend the true meaning...get it now?

Ive read a lot of your posts and Im not surprised by your response... you find 1 thing that supports your point of view and thats all it takes for you to believe you were correct all along. You continue to ignore all logic and still argue the worlds flat.

You quote one person (without providing evidence) and believe that everything else is 'fake news' and everyone who disagrees with you wrote that quote.

You misread or ignore key points from others and focus on irrelevant points that only fit your agenda. Not unlike the anti-vaccine groups I have encountered...

The bolded part...what are you going on about?

Ok

 

[Bleach Clean]

The Goldobin thing. I am not even going to answer that. See like we are speaking 2 different languages.

Rebuild is more extreme. You are going to complete make over of the core. Retool just minor adjustment. Bos was considered a retool.

Sorry Maybe I am confuse. I have so many debates but the original argument you said we should acquire more picks because more chance to get an nhl player but the Keith pick. Regardless of How many picks They would of Pick Keith. Keith should be excluded.

I wonder why you decided to use the Hawks as an example and not Pens Leafs oilers Jets. Is it because to make your presentation a look more sexy? In the above I did say Hawks took advantage of getting those extra picks.

So hawks got a lot of struggling young player from trades Sharp Ladd Versteeg Leddy. So why are drafting them are better than acquiring young players?

At times Benning Prefer to trade for early 20 year old. Dahlen (19 year old) Goldobin Baer Granlund Pedan Vey Etem. Benning likes this approach. How is getting a few more picks better than this approach? Dahlen is probably our best prospects that wasn't a 1st round pick. From 2014 to 2017 we don't have anybody drafting outside of the 1st round that's on the roster right now.

I completely get what you are saying but there no clear evidence to suggest is better you draft the rest of rosters vs other methods.

It's just silly he likes to get early 20 year old instead of Pick at times. Him doing that is not a rebuild. Hawks example show you can get a good young player by using that approach.

You get good young players using the Hawks approach, and you get them on ELCs, RFAs until 27, plus you don't pay an acquisition cost or inflated FA salary. It's gold. Put this method side by side with any trade or FA signing, and it's no contest. This is why picks are so valued.

I chose the Hawks primarily for their method of using pick frequency to draft. This method is on display above, and I think it accurately contests the notion that pick acquisition is interchangeable with trading and FA signings. It's clearly not. The Hawks extracted great benefit from that method. Nothing Benning has acquired is on that level.

I knew before asking the Goldobin question that you would not answer it. You said he was ready last year. That's how he got into the lineup. Now you're saying "if he's ready, he should make it past camp". It's double talk. Either you think he's ready and he should make it through, or you're still questioning if he's ready, which basically nullifies your previous point about last year. Either way, you're caught. An honest answer one way traps you the other way.

If you're saying that acquiring early 20 year olds instead of picks is "silly" and "not a rebuild", then you're really not advocating for the trade portion of rebuilds are you? What's left, FA signings?

I think it's pretty evident that picks are the ultimate tool in a rebuild. Anything that strays from that understanding just doesn't serve the rebuild as well. It can serve, sure, but just not as well.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

If you noticed, in my post I said 'possibly' players in their 1st or 2nd year. Not 'any' player in his 1st or 2nd year... AND definitely not anyone 3.5 years in with no inclination of improving.

'if' there was a bonifide star that was being traded because of his attitude or commitment (like seguin), that was young and you can pick him up for less than his real worth, by all means you do so (however, there are few head scouts left in the league who are dense enough to push a trade like seguins). If it requires a kings ransom, including multiple high draft picks than walk away...continue with building through the draft. If the main trading piece is a player like Eriksson at 29 years of age, you do so without question.

Does that seem logical enough for you?

If you ignore key words in a sentence than you dont comprehend the true meaning...get it now?

Ive read a lot of your posts and Im not surprised by your response... you find 1 thing that supports your point of view and thats all it takes for you to believe you were correct all along. You continue to ignore all logic and still argue the worlds flat.

You quote one person (without providing evidence) and believe that everything else is 'fake news' and everyone who disagrees with you wrote that quote.

You misread or ignore key points from others and focus on irrelevant points that only fit your agenda. Not unlike the anti-vaccine groups I have encountered...

The bolded part...what are you going on about?

You're being more condescending than making actual points..?

 

[Bleach Clean]

I can play this game as well. These are some young players that got traded at a young age. Forsberg Ladd Sharp Versteeg Leddy Mcdonaugh, Naslund, Amonte, Weight, sequin, Chara, Hull, Bishop, Moulson, Palamri. Most of them were traded for a Vets or picks at a young age.

What is this supposed to address?

 

[Canucks1096]

You get good young players using the Hawks approach, and you get them on ELCs, RFAs until 27, plus you don't pay an acquisition cost or inflated FA salary. It's gold. Put this method side by side with any trade or FA signing, and it's no contest. This is why picks are so valued.

I chose the Hawks primarily for their method of using pick frequency to draft. This method is on display above, and I think it accurately contests the notion that pick acquisition is interchangeable with trading and FA signings. It's clearly not. The Hawks extracted great benefit from that method. Nothing Benning has acquired is on that level.

I knew before asking the Goldobin question that you would not answer it. You said he was ready last year. That's how he got into the lineup. Now you're saying "if he's ready, he should make it past camp". It's double talk. Either you think he's ready and he should make it through, or you're still questioning if he's ready, which basically nullifies your previous point about last year. Either way, you're caught. An honest answer one way traps you the other way.

If you're saying that acquiring early 20 year olds instead of picks is "silly" and "not a rebuild", then you're really not advocating for the trade portion of rebuilds are you? What's left, FA signings?

I think it's pretty evident that picks are the ultimate tool in a rebuild. Anything that strays from that understanding just doesn't serve the rebuild as well. It can serve, sure, but just not as well.

Sorry I wasnt clear on the trading for early 20 year old. I mean it's silly for you guys to think that he choses to go this route instead of getting more picks is not considered a rebuild.

THE Goldobin thing is non sense. When a player seem ready. They can't take a step back?

Your way of thinking is too black and white. Lot of times it's grey. I will give you an example

I remember a few weeks ago you said 4th liner can't play Key roles and they won't be able to help shelter our Young players. So many teams out There used there 4th line to match up with offensive player when they are in the d zone. So you remember 1994 finals when Quinn use McIntyre to shut down Messier. 4th line can play Key roles and help shelter players. Everything is black and white to you

 

[Canucks1096]

What is this supposed to address?

You listed a bunch of players that got drafted outside of the 1st round. So I am telling you getting a struggling young player can turn into a good player as well.

 

[Bleach Clean]

You listed a bunch of players that got drafted outside of the 1st round. So I am telling you getting a struggling young player can turn into a good player as well.

It can, but at the same rate? If so, which one of the ones Benning has acquired is going to be Chara or Naslund level good?

Now I'm also confused by the following quote from you:

It's just silly he likes to get early 20 year old instead of Pick at times. Him doing that is not a rebuild. Hawks example show you can get a good young player by using that approach.

Which is it? Is it silly and they should draft instead, or do struggling young players turn into good players just as often?

 

[Canucks1096]

It can, but at the same rate? If so, which one of the ones Benning has acquired is going to be Chara or Naslund level good?

Now I'm also confused by the following quote from you:



Which is it? Is it silly and they should draft instead, or do struggling young players turn into good players just as often?

So which non 1st round pick made an impact so far? I forgot there not even one non 1st round pick that's on the roster right now. I have Baer and Granlund. So I guess I am winning so far.

So it's silly for you guys to think that Benning is not rebuilding because he likes to acquire young players instead of getting more picks

 

[Bleach Clean]

Sorry I wasnt clear on the trading for early 20 year old. I mean it's silly for you guys to think that he choses to go this route instead of getting more picks is not considered a rebuild.

THE Goldobin thing is non sense. When a player seem ready. They can't take a step back?

Your way of thinking is too black and white. Lot of times it's grey. I will give you an example

I remember a few weeks ago you said 4th liner can't play Key roles and they won't be able to help shelter our Young players. So many teams out There used there 4th line to match up with offensive player when they are in the d zone. So you remember 1994 finals when Quinn use McIntyre to shut down Messier. 4th line can play Key roles and help shelter players. Everything is black and white to you

To the first point: When you keep siphoning picks for 20 year old retreads its not serving the rebuild because the primary assets in a rebuild are still picks. In these types of trades, you are trading the primary asset to get a secondary asset and then hoping it pays off like a primary asset. Not smart. It's fine to try here and there, but as a methodology, it's foolish. The point about picks being the primary assets in a rebuild is black and white. It's as clear cut as it gets. Why do you think the media is all over Benning for not saying the word "rebuild", or for not acquiring picks? Everyone knows he's not following the rebuild playbook. They know he's off course and they love chastising him for it (in print anyway).

On Goldobin: How will you know the difference between Goldobin taking a step back and simply being squeezed off the roster for having a poor camp? You won't know. He needs regular season games to prove this either way.

----------------------------------

It would take too long to break down why a 3rd liner is better than a 4th liner here, so I will leave that comment at this: It's about shot differentials. A 3rd liner should be able to push play up ice better than a 4th liner given similar deployment. However, we cannot say the opposite. A 4th liner will likely not be able to push possession as well as a 3rd liner. Why? Because the 3rd liner is the better player. So how can we expect the 4th liner to "shelter" the 3rd liner? We can't. If you truly want to shelter a 3rd liner, get another 3rd liner that can be deployed in a similar fashion and still push play as well. Do you understand?

 

[Bleach Clean]

So which non 1st round pick made an impact so far? I forgot there not even one non 1st round pick that's on the roster right now. I have Baer and Granlund. So I guess I am winning so far.

So it's silly for you guys to think that Benning is not rebuilding because he likes to acquire young players instead of getting more picks

Let's revisit this when Demko makes it. Or, when Gaudette matures. I'll remember to bring this up then.

There's a threshold. No one is saying that you cannot trade picks for young players, period. Using a mixed strategy is fine. However, if you do it too much, then you're depleting your best rebuilding resource for (often) middling players. 20 year olds that get traded tend to have issues in their game that allow drafting teams to give up on them early. When you trade a pick for said player, you are taking on those issues. Where as the pick itself is the base level asset for everyone. It's a chance to find a truly high level asset. In other words, you get the apple from the tree.