The Rebuild Started...

When did the rebuild start


  • Total voters
    213
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

PuckMunchkin

Very Nice, Very Evil!
Dec 13, 2006
12,220
9,932
Lapland
He was out of shape..
Vancouver Canucks✔@Canucks
Hutton said he isn’t proud of his season. “Coach was right to question my game and conditioning. I’m glad he did, it shows he cares and knows I can be better. And I will be better. I’ve already talked to guys back home, I’m starting a running group.”
11:40 AM - Apr 9, 2018

Sounds like what I tought. Green just trying to get more out of Hutton.

What the f*** are you expecting him to say here? "I was in fine shape. Green is satan!"

P.S Your post was pretty dead-on but was really brought down by the Trump stuff, consider leaving political belittlement out next time, it doesn't make you look very good and obscures your point.

Why is political opinion some how different than any other opinion, and should there for be left out of discussion or be exempt from being used as an example?
 
Last edited:

Horse McHindu

They call me Horse.....
Jun 21, 2014
9,668
2,650
Beijing
Don’t confuse objectivity with neutrality. A neutral opinion is wrong when the objective evidence points in one direction over another. In such a case, the neutral opinion actually ignores or fights the objective conclusion.

This board is predominantly anti-Benning. This goes well past the few posters you’re referencing. That said, the traits of a rebuild are the same regardless of who’s in charge. That’s why when Holland accrues picks, people know he’s rebuilding, even though a lot of DET fans hate him. Or, we know that Gorton is rebuilding in NYR despite calls for his resignation. The perception of a rebuild is separate from the feeling towards the GM.

If you want proof: List your best argument, your absolute best, as to why you think this is a Rebuild. I will weigh every point and break down where I agree and where I don’t. I will list why I don’t agree with any point. My rationale. None of it will have to do with Benning. We can designate GM X as the GM in this scenario. Are you game?

One quick point.

I know people here correlate the number of picks with a rebuild, but these people are failing to take some of our other trades into account.

-Burrows for Dahlen
-Holm for Leipsic.

Both Dahlen and Leipsic have a very good chance of being long term players for the Canucks and are still quite young.

Even a guy like Goldobin (Hansen moved out) isn’t a complete lost caused yet. Add to that, guys like Baertschi and Granlund. Yes - Granlund is pretty much a non-factor, but we atleast got something out of him (as opposed to Shinkaruk who we wouldn’t have gotten anything out of).

So yes - while our total number of picks haven’t been as high as many rebuilding teams, we still have a lot of young talent in our system that have the potential to be a part of our next core.

I would also argue that given Benning’s drafting record while he’s been here, he’s significantly outperformed many other teams that have had more picks than he has. I would argue that a higher number of his picks have a greater likelihood of making the NHL, then many other teams that have had a higher number of picks. In other words, I believe time will prove that Benning did more with less.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Canucks1096

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
27,000
6,572
Is there a reason why you didn't use Jets as one of your examples? Is it because the Jets don't fit your description of a rebuild?
Some facts about the Jets rebuild.

2014 to 2017 before they became a powerhouse 29 draft picks during that time frame. Canucks had 28. Btw jets traded picks for players like the Canucks. Those 4 year stretch they traded 6 picks for these 6 players Tangradi, Gustavasson,Harrison, Tlusty, Frolik, Setoguchi.

How come Jets were so successful? They didn't follow the scripted road map that you had. This Jets example proves that your wrong that a rebuild doesn't have to be your scripted road map.

The problem with your argument is you like to cherry pick. You didn't bother talking about the Jets because it doesn't fit your agenda.

About yesterday the question I Asked about what players did the rebuild team get by stacking picks. You only gave the Hawks example because you knew the Pens, Oilers and a few teams didn't have that many. That's cherry picking.

You think you are right Because you just cherry pick the stuff that fits your agenda.

Don't reply back and say Jets didn't rebuild. Every person in hockey knows Jets went through a rebuild


From 2014 to 2017, WPG's pick rank was:

2014: 9th (they finished 13th in 2013)
2015: 17th
2016: 2nd
2017: 24th

I'm going to ask you: Are those the pick finishes of a rebuilding team? If you say yes, please explain your rationale.

FYI: The Jets/Thrashers franchise actually bottomed out until 2012. They picked top10 in 5 drafts. In 2013, they were a bubble team, finishing 13th. You should be looking at those 5 years as the bottoming out rebuild years, not your sample where the team actually finished 17th and 24th in alternating years.

During your chosen sample, WPG was actually at a pick surplus! They were 1 pick over the assigned amount. Can you believe it? During Benning's 5 drafts, he's been at a pick deficit. He was 1 pick under the assigned amount. 5 drafts, 4 picks in the top10, and he's running a pick deficit... Explain this difference.

The CHI breakdown should have put your argument to bed. I gave you exactly what you were looking for, and you had nothing to contest it.

I didn't choose EDM because they did not rebuild properly.

I didn't choose PIT because I didn't think PIT would be cited as an example of your retooling idea. They clearly rebuilt that team from the ground up. They were at the bottom from 2002 to 2005 (4 drafts), running a pick surplus, and when they nabbed Crosby they tried to compete. It's very similar to what TOR did once they drafted Matthews. That's the blueprint.

Anything else?
 

Canucks1096

Registered User
Feb 13, 2016
5,608
1,667
From 2014 to 2017, WPG's pick rank was:

2014: 9th (they finished 13th in 2013)
2015: 17th
2016: 2nd
2017: 24th

I'm going to ask you: Are those the pick finishes of a rebuilding team? If you say yes, please explain your rationale.

FYI: The Jets/Thrashers franchise actually bottomed out until 2012. They picked top10 in 5 drafts. In 2013, they were a bubble team, finishing 13th. You should be looking at those 5 years as the bottoming out rebuild years, not your sample where the team actually finished 17th and 24th in alternating years.

During your chosen sample, WPG was actually at a pick surplus! They were 1 pick over the assigned amount. Can you believe it? During Benning's 5 drafts, he's been at a pick deficit. He was 1 pick under the assigned amount. 5 drafts, 4 picks in the top10, and he's running a pick deficit... Explain this difference.

The CHI breakdown should have put your argument to bed. I gave you exactly what you were looking for, and you had nothing to contest it.

I didn't choose EDM because they did not rebuild properly.

I didn't choose PIT because I didn't think PIT would be cited as an example of your retooling idea. They clearly rebuilt that team from the ground up. They were at the bottom from 2002 to 2005 (4 drafts), running a pick surplus, and when they nabbed Crosby they tried to compete. It's very similar to what TOR did once they drafted Matthews. That's the blueprint.

Anything else?

Google Winnipeg Jets rebuild. Lots of articles comes up and claim they were rebuilding. Are you saying you know more than all these sports writer? This is non sense. Just admit you are wrong. Is it really that hard. Me and you don't even know each other.

You are making excuses. Hawks has the most examples and you choose the Hawks to use as an argument. Dude it's not a coincidence. So You decided to cherry pick the teams with the most examples. Pits and Oilers dont count. What a coincidence there no examples of what I am looking for so those 2 teams doesn't count.

You couldn't be more obvious with your cherry picking.

According to your analogy Canucks finished 6th 2nd 3rd last the last 3 years so I guess you think they are rebuilding because of the standings

The hockey world claim Jets were rebuilding. Sorry this may hurt but we are going by that.

I am right on this. You are wrong. Trust me. 100% non sense.
 
Last edited:

Canucks1096

Registered User
Feb 13, 2016
5,608
1,667
From 2014 to 2017, WPG's pick rank was:

2014: 9th (they finished 13th in 2013)
2015: 17th
2016: 2nd
2017: 24th

I'm going to ask you: Are those the pick finishes of a rebuilding team? If you say yes, please explain your rationale.

FYI: The Jets/Thrashers franchise actually bottomed out until 2012. They picked top10 in 5 drafts. In 2013, they were a bubble team, finishing 13th. You should be looking at those 5 years as the bottoming out rebuild years, not your sample where the team actually finished 17th and 24th in alternating years.

During your chosen sample, WPG was actually at a pick surplus! They were 1 pick over the assigned amount. Can you believe it? During Benning's 5 drafts, he's been at a pick deficit. He was 1 pick under the assigned amount. 5 drafts, 4 picks in the top10, and he's running a pick deficit... Explain this difference.

The CHI breakdown should have put your argument to bed. I gave you exactly what you were looking for, and you had nothing to contest it.

I didn't choose EDM because they did not rebuild properly.

I didn't choose PIT because I didn't think PIT would be cited as an example of your retooling idea. They clearly rebuilt that team from the ground up. They were at the bottom from 2002 to 2005 (4 drafts), running a pick surplus, and when they nabbed Crosby they tried to compete. It's very similar to what TOR did once they drafted Matthews. That's the blueprint.

Anything else?

Oilers 4 years before they made the playoffs 31 picks. No notice long term contract to aging Vets. No prospects that were blocked out Vets. Oilers fit the scripted rebuilding road map of yours. Now you are telling me they didn't rebuild properly

Hahahahahahahaha
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
27,000
6,572
Holland said he should have retired when Lidstrom did. Hitting on Datsyuk and Zetterberg so late is a feat that won’t be replicated for an eon. His glory is past. If Detroit stands for anything it is that good/lucky drafting ≠ higher number of picks.

And it wasn’t just Detroit that didn’t acquire picks. Since only Chicago gained a support player or two via the tactic (LA may as well not have bothered) I’m thinking that an overwhelming number of cup winners and finalists didn’t get there via the picks hoarding method, otherwise known as the one and only “proper rebuilt” method. This could be providence given that 2/3 of voters figure the “rebuilt hasn’t yet started.” :)

“Yes” to both questions, incomplete as they are, assuming that nothing is coming back for trading picks. E.g., Baertschi will likely play his 300 NHL game this year. Less than 1/4 2nd rounders do this. Only about 14% get to 400. I like his chances. How many 2nd round picks can Benning literally give away before he falls below average of 2nd round expectations per his term as GM? “But upside” of those unconverted picks or “Bae is junk” is not an answer. Even support players are only as good as the core and when those get better…

Also, that last statement doesn't follow. Good/lucky drafting trumps excess picks every time. Back to Detroit and maybe every other cup winner other than Chicago. There are countless options.

Bottom line, if the prospect pool is the best in Nuck history, as at least one major paper columnist puts it and many others rate it highly, than it stands to reason that a rebuilt of *some* kind has at least started. Far too many make every thread a regime verdict.

Enjoy the summer boyz. I’ll see you in September.


"DET stands for good/lucky drafting over a higher number of picks", yet DET just procured 21 picks for the last 2 drafts. Holland is actually a major proponent of pick frequency (I think I can dig up a video to prove this). Did you know that? Do you realize how off base your assertion sounds in light of these two facts? The DET example is the opposite of what you are suggesting is the proper course of action.

CHI cycles assets, hoards picks, gets "support players" like Saad and Hjalmarsson, wins cups = they didn't get there via the hoarding picks method... Lol?

Baertschi is a good player. I liked that trade. Too many trades of that ilk gets you on the other side of that 14% marker quite easily. Drafting is better, usually.

If you have admitted to A) The draft is the best place to acquire core players and B) More picks increases the odds of getting those players, then you agree that picks are the primary rebuilding asset. Period. This makes acquiring picks mandatory for rebuilding. It's really very simple. You have accepted the two main viewpoints that lead to the logical conclusion.

My last statement does follow: Nobody can predict good/lucky drafting. That's why you need extra picks to ensure that hit rates are in your favour. Unless you want to contest that VAN is a better drafting team than all of its competitors, and you can prove this in some way?

That we can eventually arrive at a new core does not mean that this new core was rebuilt properly. See EDM as an example. We are trying to outline what a proper rebuild should be. It's not about accepting any mishmash approach to a future product that may be good. It's about the best route to the best potential future product.
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
27,000
6,572
Oilers 4 years before they made the playoffs 31 picks. No notice long term contract to aging Vets. No prospects that were blocked out Vets. Oilers fit the scripted rebuilding road map of yours. Now you are telling me they didn't rebuild properly

Hahahahahahahaha


The Oilers fit near everything except for time. No rebuild should be 10+ years. That's what happens when multiple rebuild attempts fail back to back.


Google Winnipeg Jets rebuild. Lots of articles comes up and claim they were rebuilding. Are you saying you know more than all these sports writer? This is non sense. Be a man and just admit you are wrong. Is it really that hard. Me and you don't even know each other.

You are making excuses. Hawks has the most examples and you choose the Hawks to use as an argument. Dude it's not a coincidence. So You decided to cherry pick the teams with the most examples. Pits and Oilers dont count. What a coincidence there no examples of what I am looking for so those 2 teams doesn't count.

You couldn't be more obvious with your cherry picking.

According to your analogy Canucks finished 6th 2nd 3rd last the last 3 years so I guess you think they are rebuilding because of the standings

The hockey world claim Jets were rebuilding. Sorry this may hurt but we are going by that.

I am right on this. You are wrong. Trust me. 100% mon sense.


If I'm wrong, why do you have a tidal wave of posters hammering every one of your posts?

Just take a breath for a moment. Understand what is being said to you. Breathe.

PIT counts. They are an example of a proper rebuild. EDM is not an example of a proper rebuild.

Rebuilding requires multiple factors. It's not just team state. If it was just the state of the team, VAN would be clearly identified as a rebuilding team, but they aren't because their actions do not emphasize the draft. They're just a bad team making the picks they are assigned. They are as bad as a rebuilding team without doing the things a rebuilding team should do while being bad. That's why it's not a rebuild.

Take that in. Understand why I have eliminated EDM. I could have easily used EDM for their pick surplus alone, but I'm not doing that because I know they have failed in other areas. They didn't rebuild properly. This is discussing things in a genuine fashion. Nothing is being cherry picked. This isn't about admitting/not admitting fault. I've been on these boards for a lot longer than you have. I've been wrong many times over. I have no issues being wrong again and admitting it. This is not that. I'm proving my case to you. I'm using evidence and logic to refute what you are citing because I think your assertions are incorrect. That's what this is.

- Explain WPG finishing 17th and 24th within a rebuild state.
- Explain WPG's pick surplus even then, and VAN's pick deficit.
- Did the CHI example prove that key players can be drafted with depth picks?
- Explain why you think trading and signings are just as easy/effective as drafting?
- Tell me what is required in a rebuild other than the team just being bad.

That's the way to get to a resolution here.
 

Canucks1096

Registered User
Feb 13, 2016
5,608
1,667
The Oilers fit near everything except for time. No rebuild should be 10+ years. That's what happens when multiple rebuild attempts fail back to back.





If I'm wrong, why do you have a tidal wave of posters hammering every one of your posts?

Just take a breath for a moment. Understand what is being said to you. Breathe.

PIT counts. They are an example of a proper rebuild. EDM is not an example of a proper rebuild.

Rebuilding requires multiple factors. It's not just team state. If it was just the state of the team, VAN would be clearly identified as a rebuilding team, but they aren't because their actions do not emphasize the draft. They're just a bad team making the picks they are assigned. They are as bad as a rebuilding team without doing the things a rebuilding team should do while being bad. That's why it's not a rebuild.

Take that in. Understand why I have eliminated EDM. I could have easily used EDM for their pick surplus alone, but I'm not doing that because I know they have failed in other areas. They didn't rebuild properly. This is discussing things in a genuine fashion. Nothing is being cherry picked. This isn't about admitting/not admitting fault. I've been on these boards for a lot longer than you have. I've been wrong many times over. I have no issues being wrong again and admitting it. This is not that. I'm proving my case to you. I'm using evidence and logic to refute what you are citing because I think your assertions are incorrect. That's what this is.

- Explain WPG finishing 17th and 24th within a rebuild state.
- Explain WPG's pick surplus even then, and VAN's pick deficit.
- Did the CHI example prove that key players can be drafted with depth picks?
- Explain why you think trading and signings are just as easy/effective as drafting?
- Tell me what is required in a rebuild other than the team just being bad.

That's the way to get to a resolution here.

So you are saying Edmonton used your rebuild road map. Also you are saying Edmonton didn't rebuild properly. So you pretty much indirectly said your way of rebuilding doesn't really work?

Pits won the damn Lottery. That's why rebuild was a success. They didn't get much from stacking those picks.

Winnipeg finished 23 14 25 20 in the standings from 2013 to 2017. 3 out last 4 years before becoming an elite team finished in the 20 range. Now all of sudden you are bringing standings in the argument. So they finished early 20 to Mid 20 range. You never said in your debate a rebuild needs to finished lower than that. ln your debate you keep on adding something and changing the goal post and add something different.

Pits Tampa Edm Leafs. They all didn't get better becauze they were stacking picks.

The thing there is so many rebuilds. Each rebuild the method was not exactly the same. You are pretty much saying there one method to rebuild. Which is non sense. It's like saying there is one way to build a cup contender. If you actually look at all those rebuild you would know exactly the same which proves me that I am right.

Anyway No matter what evidences you throw at me. You are not going convince me. I won't be able to convince me as well. I am not going to reply to this thread anymore.

My wife was right. I spend too much on this forum debating about non sense.
 

PuckMunchkin

Very Nice, Very Evil!
Dec 13, 2006
12,220
9,932
Lapland
Google Winnipeg Jets rebuild. Lots of articles comes up and claim they were rebuilding. Are you saying you know more than all these sports writer? This is non sense. Just admit you are wrong. Is it really that hard. Me and you don't even know each other.

You are making excuses. Hawks has the most examples and you choose the Hawks to use as an argument. Dude it's not a coincidence. So You decided to cherry pick the teams with the most examples. Pits and Oilers dont count. What a coincidence there no examples of what I am looking for so those 2 teams doesn't count.

You couldn't be more obvious with your cherry picking.

According to your analogy Canucks finished 6th 2nd 3rd last the last 3 years so I guess you think they are rebuilding because of the standings

The hockey world claim Jets were rebuilding. Sorry this may hurt but we are going by that.

I am right on this. You are wrong. Trust me. 100% non sense.

If I had more time I'd help you make your case. You are doing a horrible job representing your point of view.

Someone needs to iron man his argument to the point he agrees and then hammer that shit down. I choose you @Shareefruck
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
C'mon guys we traded away assets for Sutter to never play a playoff game for us. We then signed him to long term deal to never play a playoff game . We need someone to mentor the the futures we missed out on.

Futures for Lucic to create a "safe working environment" for those futures we'd have traded to get him.

Eriksson, never expect to play a playoff game for his $6m a year, he's here for Swedish lessons. At least we got some of those.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
I don't think anyone has said there is one specific method to rebuild. I think what is being offered is that there are commonalities between all rebuilds....certainly all successful rebuilds. One of those commonalities is an excess of draft picks and emphasis on drafting.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
Is there a reason why you didn't use Jets as one of your examples? Is it because the Jets don't fit your description of a rebuild?

Some facts about the Jets rebuild.

2014 to 2017 before they became a powerhouse 29 draft picks during that time frame. Canucks had 28. Btw jets traded picks for players like the Canucks. Those 4 year stretch they traded 6 picks for these 6 players Tangradi, Gustavasson,Harrison, Tlusty, Frolik, Setoguchi.

How come Jets were so successful? They didn't follow the scripted road map that you had. This Jets example proves that your wrong that a rebuild doesn't have to be your scripted road map.

The problem with your argument is you like to cherry pick. You didn't bother talking about the Jets because it doesn't fit your agenda.

About yesterday the question I Asked about what players did the rebuild team get by stacking picks. You only gave the Hawks example because you knew the Pens, Oilers and a few teams didn't have that many. That's cherry picking.

You think you are right Because you just cherry pick the stuff that fits your agenda.

Don't reply back and say Jets didn't rebuild. Every person in hockey knows Jets went through a rebuild

Actually it's clear you're the one who's cherry picking, conveniently ignoring the 2013 draft where they had 2 picks in every round except 1, 5 and 6, and the fact that they had 2 picks in the first round in 2015 and 2016.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
If I had more time I'd help you make your case. You are doing a horrible job representing your point of view.

Someone needs to iron man his argument to the point he agrees and then hammer that **** down. I choose you @Shareefruck
As far as I'm concerned, RonningOnEmpty has already thoroughly dismantled every one of his points (in a more patient and mechanically efficient manner than I could muster, at that), and from what I can see, he seems to just either ignore/charge right past them, dismissively repeat his argument, and/or preemptively accuse retorts of being guilty of argument tactics that he is actually the one guilty of.
 
Last edited:

Seattle Totems

Registered User
Apr 14, 2010
3,891
1,131
Thanks for the lecture, you certainly cleared up my confusion.

With this in mind...



Wow what an offer - lets engage in a back and forth, where you lecture me in a condescending manner, over a topic that is subjective. Unless you can show me a widely accepted standard of what a rebuild is everything you say is subjective. It would be the same as debating the proper way to raise a child. There are multiple avenues that work, just like there are multiple ways teams resurrect themselves from basement dwellers to perennial threats to win it all.

As an aside, even though I hardly post here, I know your MO. You talk down to people who do not agree with you because you think you are always right. Its a common trait of this place I suppose. Out of all the hockey forums on the internet this is the only one rife with accusations of sophistry launched by posters who enjoy getting into pissing contests in an attempt to show off their supposed intellectual superiority (i mean look at your first paragraph above). Its laughable how many times one can read blasts of "ad hominem" and "straw man" in here accompanied by "show your homework" and " that is your false narrative". If there is a forum with little man syndrome, this is it. The hockey hardly matters anymore, its all about being right and belittling people who offer dissenting views.

So in the end, I'll pass. Your offer to weigh my points and give me a break down of where you don't agree would mean something if you were an actual authority.

Oh look yet another logical fallacy: appeals to authority!

This is a message board where posters debate and there are rules to debates. The only reason this bothers you is because you can't play by fair rules. It's also odd how you talk of "sophistry" yet complain about terms such as "ad hominem" being thrown around. Thats an interesting choice of words for someone positioning themselves as populist. Next you throw out an ad hominem by calling this a "little man forum". Pretty hypocritical. Seems disingenuous.
 

coolboarder

Registered User
Mar 4, 2010
1,424
296
Maryland
Of course you'll pass, because as much as you want to defend Benning even you know you can't come up with a logical argument that supports him, or that suggests that the Canucks are actually in a rebuild. Rebuilds do not involve stockpiling veterans while trading away picks and prospects and avoiding acquiring additional draft picks.
I'll give you my opinion on rebuild, generally, you would want to stockpile the prospects but there is one problem: there is a limit to 50 contract slots given to all teams in the league. You do not want to waste any picks that is not able to sign with us because he might be a lower rung on the prospects ladder and rebuilding will not be done for at least 4-5 years and complete roster turnover after 7 years unless you are a homegrown talented player that was with us before the rebuild started and many players due to retirement, fell out of favor by a team, trades, choose not to resign him to a new contract, etc. It is kind of a wasted pick when you could not sign every draft picks and re-entry in the draft and it's a wasted trade for that pick. With the veterans, you know what you have and with the picks, you do not know exactly what you get for a long while and may never see the fruit of the labor because of the time limit: 2 years for CHL players and 4 years for college players to sign a ELC. You cannot possibly sign all 10 CHL players within 2 years because of the 50-contract slots limit.

Now, you have other factors: you cannot really rush your prospects or they would be ruined. If you give away every veterans just to stockpile picks, you have 10 picks in a draft year plus you want more picks in next 3 years, and you have 40 picks in next 4 years because you are giving away veterans. That's 40 contract slots and what's left? They are ruined because lack of veterans presence and leadership.

I think that the Canucks do the rebuilding the right way with a mixture of veterans and youth. Giving their own prospects time to develop and they learned a lesson from Virtenan and McCann rushing and they are almost ruined and they finally sent Virtenan to the Utica just to focus on development side. With fewer picks, you are forced to focus on the quality picks than a quantality but yet you maintain a quality NHL team with veterans presence before the injury. Even with full of injuries, their own young players are not ready to play in the game, mid-point of the season and you can clearly see that if they were to be with us from the start, they'd be ruined immediately.

Now I understand why the Canucks wouldn't let them play right away in last 3 years except for Brock Boeser and even Brock had to miss first two games just to get his energy back up after a long preseason and he did fine in his first year. He had help from Vanek and without Vanek, I do not think he would have a better year. You need veteran leadership to mentor your own rookies and to guide them any tough stretch in the season.

My conclusion to this matter: do not give away veterans for nothing while rebuilding and they are not ready for prime time. It takes time for our own picks to develop properly and do not be like Edmonton Oilers or the Toronto Maple Leafs where their rebuilding continued for decades and ruined their prospects when they weren't ready. If you really notice in last 3 seasons, the Canucks had a strong start only to fall away due to injuries and they have been cooking their own prospects in Utica, or junior, or even in European league. In latter 2 leagues, you cannot really call them up until their season is over. Majority of Benning's picks was in Junior or European league. Last year was the first year where Benning can send majority of his own prospects to Utica just to develop and play a pro game.
 
Last edited:

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
27,000
6,572
So you are saying Edmonton used your rebuild road map. Also you are saying Edmonton didn't rebuild properly. So you pretty much indirectly said your way of rebuilding doesn't really work?

Pits won the damn Lottery. That's why rebuild was a success. They didn't get much from stacking those picks.


PIT won the lottery in the Fleury draft as well, why wasn't it considered a success at that point? Why did they keep going? Why did they stack picks?

EDM accrued picks at the rate I would expect a rebuilding team to do. That said, their management team was porous and stalled what could have been successful rebuilds prior to lucking into McDavid.


Winnipeg finished 23 14 25 20 in the standings from 2013 to 2017. 3 out last 4 years before becoming an elite team finished in the 20 range. Now all of sudden you are bringing standings in the argument. So they finished early 20 to Mid 20 range. You never said in your debate a rebuild needs to finished lower than that. ln your debate you keep on adding something and changing the goal post and add something different.

Pits Tampa Edm Leafs. They all didn't get better becauze they were stacking picks.

The thing there is so many rebuilds. Each rebuild the method was not exactly the same. You are pretty much saying there one method to rebuild. Which is non sense. It's like saying there is one way to build a cup contender. If you actually look at all those rebuild you would know exactly the same which proves me that I am right.

Anyway No matter what evidences you throw at me. You are not going convince me. I won't be able to convince me as well. I am not going to reply to this thread anymore.

My wife was right. I spend too much on this forum debating about non sense.


Generally, when a team is first in the basement for 5 years, and then begins to bounce from mid-round to late round picks the next 4 years afterward, people don't look at the last 4 years and say that those were the rebuilding years.

No goal posts are shifting. You are failing to recognize which window is actually the rebuilding window. That's why the examples you are pushing (WPG 2014-2017) and (CHI, which you have now ignored) are all over the map. Pick a window. First establish that it is in fact the team's rebuilding window, and then study it.

There's no one way to build a core group. I've repeated this over and over again. VAN will have a core group from these 5-6-7 years of failure under Benning. A core group will emerge. Just like a core group emerged in EDM. The question is: Was that the best way to go about creating a new core group? That's the difference between a focused managerial push towards a rebuild, and this 'call it what you want' build.

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

I knew that as soon as we got into judging examples, this topic would fall off the tracks. For example, there is an interpretation. The more examples, the more interpretations, and the higher likelihood we would disagree on each interpretation. It's a red herring.

What this boils down to is methodology. I'm going to list what I feel are the commonalities in a rebuild, and you do the same. Then, we'll take these interpretations to an independent audience and have them judge which set represents the more expected method in a rebuild. Are you up for it?

Here's my list:

1. Picks are the primary assets in a rebuild.
2. Therefore, what emphasizes the procurement of picks, serves the rebuild best.
3. Trade vets for picks.
4. Seldom trade picks for players, even younger fringe players.
5. During the rebuild window, make sure to have a pick surplus.
6. Do not sign free agents to inflated or long-term deals.
7. Do not over-sign depth players, so as to take spots away from prospects.
8. Weaponize cap space.
9. Depth picks are extremely important as they can yield core/support pieces.
10. Drafting is better than trading and/or signing players.

Does that represent my position?
 

coolboarder

Registered User
Mar 4, 2010
1,424
296
Maryland
Here's my list:

1. Picks are the primary assets in a rebuild.
2. Therefore, what emphasizes the procurement of picks, serves the rebuild best.
3. Trade vets for picks.
4. Seldom trade picks for players, even younger fringe players.
5. During the rebuild window, make sure to have a pick surplus.
6. Do not sign free agents to inflated or long-term deals.
7. Do not over-sign depth players, so as to take spots away from prospects.
8. Weaponize cap space.
9. Depth picks are extremely important as they can yield core/support pieces.
10. Drafting is better than trading and/or signing players.

Does that represent my position?

I do not agree with you on this one. Picks are not the primary assets in any rebuild because that picks might not pan out as we wanted to see. If it didn't pan out, then that asset is not great for any return in a trade.

In any rebuild situation, my list:
1. Do not rush any prospects that they are not ready for.
2. Sign any depth veterans to support the prospects growth or temporary a placeholder for that role until the prospects are ready.
3. Trade any veterans that our own prospects are ready to step in for picks or known young asset that could help us right away in different role that is needed.
4. Free agents is to seek and acquire that would supporting role for any rebuild.
5. Any overflowing proven prospects that is no room in the roster to be dealt away for any glaring holes in our line-up, i.e. full of forwards that are ready for the NHL but no room to put them in exchange for any weakness in the line-up such as defenceman or goaltender.
6. Draft any skilled prospects that is a Taylor-made for AHL, i.e.: 6th round or 7th round picks to develop a team-system style as a training ground for our top prospects to play with without playing with any grinders on first line as an example. 5 years of their service as a continuous basis without veterans free agents on AHL contract to disturb the team development system.
7. Never sign any UFA over age of 30 to a long term deal while UFA between 26 to 29 can be signed for a long term so that his productivity would be more of a steady for the duration of the contract than unforeseen decline that is common when they hit 33-34 years old.
8. Depth picks are not guaranteed to pan out so you need free agents as a back-up for any depth. If there is ever a bad draft year, you can always afford to give up picks for any offer sheet to any better RFA players out there that another team cannot afford to match or salary cap is already maxed out. Giving up draft picks as a compensation in any bad draft year for a better RFA players is always a win. To recognize a bad draft year is the hardest and trickiest part on which year to make an offer sheet move for any RFA the year prior. (first 3 rounds compensation list not 4 first rounds). If 2nd round picks is not good when compared to other years, use that as an offer sheet for that specific category, a loss of 2nd round pick amount as an example.
9. Prospects must earn their way into the line-up rather than entitlement. Veterans must get in their way in order for their prospects to improve asap and be better than the veterans. If they don't ever improve, it's highly unlikely that he would have been better in the first place by giving them spots that they don't deserve and ruin the team chemistry in the future when they reach at the point when he is expected to be better.
10. Drafting is not always better but an essential part of the future and you may made your picks but it's how you develop them. Better development system.
 

Pastor Of Muppetz

Registered User
Oct 1, 2017
26,010
15,871
[QUOTE="PuckMunchkin, post: 148313921, member: 46331"]Sounds like what I tought. Green just trying to get more out of Hutton.

What the **** are you expecting him to say here? "I was in fine shape. Green is satan!"




Thats just what you thought..Theres plenty of evidence from Hutton himself that he wasn't in top shape..

Province,
“I’m going to grind to make sure I come back as one of the most-conditioned guys on the team,” vowed Hutton. “I’ve had a lot of ups and downs but in the long run it’s going to help. It’s simple. Be in top shape and perform to my capabilities.”
If Hutton does that, Green won’t be questioning his focus or resolve.
“It’s very clear with what he wants — he’s a straight-up guy,” said Hutton. “I want to be a puck-moving, mobile defenceman and still be strong in my battles. I need some muscle, but conditioning is big.”

I think I'd pick Huttons version over yours...
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
27,000
6,572
I do not agree with you on this one. Picks are not the primary assets in any rebuild because that picks might not pan out as we wanted to see. If it didn't pan out, then that asset is not great for any return in a trade.


To clarify your position: Picks are not the primary assets in a rebuild because they may not pan out. Is this correct?


10. Drafting is not always better but an essential part of the future and you may made your picks but it's how you develop them. Better development system.


Drafting is not always better than what?
 

PuckMunchkin

Very Nice, Very Evil!
Dec 13, 2006
12,220
9,932
Lapland
Thats just what you thought..Theres plenty of evidence from Hutton himself that he wasn't in top shape..

Province,
“I’m going to grind to make sure I come back as one of the most-conditioned guys on the team,” vowed Hutton. “I’ve had a lot of ups and downs but in the long run it’s going to help. It’s simple. Be in top shape and perform to my capabilities.”
If Hutton does that, Green won’t be questioning his focus or resolve.
“It’s very clear with what he wants — he’s a straight-up guy,” said Hutton. “I want to be a puck-moving, mobile defenceman and still be strong in my battles. I need some muscle, but conditioning is big.”

I think I'd pick Huttons version over yours...

That fits great with what I said earlier. Thanks for posting that.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
I'll give you my opinion on rebuild, generally, you would want to stockpile the prospects but there is one problem: there is a limit to 50 contract slots given to all teams in the league. You do not want to waste any picks that is not able to sign with us because he might be a lower rung on the prospects ladder and rebuilding will not be done for at least 4-5 years and complete roster turnover after 7 years unless you are a homegrown talented player that was with us before the rebuild started and many players due to retirement, fell out of favor by a team, trades, choose not to resign him to a new contract, etc. It is kind of a wasted pick when you could not sign every draft picks and re-entry in the draft and it's a wasted trade for that pick. With the veterans, you know what you have and with the picks, you do not know exactly what you get for a long while and may never see the fruit of the labor because of the time limit: 2 years for CHL players and 4 years for college players to sign a ELC. You cannot possibly sign all 10 CHL players within 2 years because of the 50-contract slots limit.

Not every draft pick is going to hit. That's why you stockpile draft picks so that you have more prospects that you can evaluate over that next 2-year period (longer if they're in Europe or in college. I don't see the problem here. Avoid wasting contract spots on bad players and you can easily sign every worthwhile prospect you draft.


Now, you have other factors: you cannot really rush your prospects or they would be ruined. If you give away every veterans just to stockpile picks, you have 10 picks in a draft year plus you want more picks in next 3 years, and you have 40 picks in next 4 years because you are giving away veterans. That's 40 contract slots and what's left? They are ruined because lack of veterans presence and leadership.

Show me one person who has suggested rushing a prospect. The problem is the Canucks are stockpiling veterans and not creating any room for youth. We're not talking about 18/19 year old prospects here. But 20-22 year old prospects should have spots.

I think that the Canucks do the rebuilding the right way with a mixture of veterans and youth. Giving their own prospects time to develop and they learned a lesson from Virtenan and McCann rushing and they are almost ruined and they finally sent Virtenan to the Utica just to focus on development side. With fewer picks, you are forced to focus on the quality picks than a quantality but yet you maintain a quality NHL team with veterans presence before the injury. Even with full of injuries, their own young players are not ready to play in the game, mid-point of the season and you can clearly see that if they were to be with us from the start, they'd be ruined immediately.

Except they're not rebuilding, so how can you say they're rebuilding the right way? They're overloaded with veterans, with very little rookies. There are barely spots for their prospects to make the team. Players like Goldobin, Dahlen, and even young players like Leipsic don't have a spot. There's barely a spot for Pettersson after the veterans Benning loaded up on this team. If these players aren't good enough to make the NHL at this age then they obviously aren't very good prospects.

Now I understand why the Canucks wouldn't let them play right away in last 3 years except for Brock Boeser and even Brock had to miss first two games just to get his energy back up after a long preseason and he did fine in his first year. He had help from Vanek and without Vanek, I do not think he would have a better year. You need veteran leadership to mentor your own rookies and to guide them any tough stretch in the season.

That was just a lame BS excuse that people who aren't capable of thinking for themselves bought. You really expect me to believe that Boeser was tired after the pre-season, but was fine the rest of the regular season? Really? Think about it. You seriously don't think Boeser's talent would have come out without Vanek? C'mon man, wake up. Good young players play well. You see it all around the league. Try watching other teams and stop being so Canuck-centric.

My conclusion to this matter: do not give away veterans for nothing while rebuilding and they are not ready for prime time. It takes time for our own picks to develop properly and do not be like Edmonton Oilers or the Toronto Maple Leafs where their rebuilding continued for decades and ruined their prospects when they weren't ready. If you really notice in last 3 seasons, the Canucks had a strong start only to fall away due to injuries and they have been cooking their own prospects in Utica, or junior, or even in European league. In latter 2 leagues, you cannot really call them up until their season is over. Majority of Benning's picks was in Junior or European league. Last year was the first year where Benning can send majority of his own prospects to Utica just to develop and play a pro game.

See my advice above because you clearly have no clue why Edmonton and Toronto were at the bottom of the league for so long.
 

Canucks1096

Registered User
Feb 13, 2016
5,608
1,667
PIT won the lottery in the Fleury draft as well, why wasn't it considered a success at that point? Why did they keep going? Why did they stack picks?

EDM accrued picks at the rate I would expect a rebuilding team to do. That said, their management team was porous and stalled what could have been successful rebuilds prior to lucking into McDavid.





Generally, when a team is first in the basement for 5 years, and then begins to bounce from mid-round to late round picks the next 4 years afterward, people don't look at the last 4 years and say that those were the rebuilding years.

No goal posts are shifting. You are failing to recognize which window is actually the rebuilding window. That's why the examples you are pushing (WPG 2014-2017) and (CHI, which you have now ignored) are all over the map. Pick a window. First establish that it is in fact the team's rebuilding window, and then study it.

There's no one way to build a core group. I've repeated this over and over again. VAN will have a core group from these 5-6-7 years of failure under Benning. A core group will emerge. Just like a core group emerged in EDM. The question is: Was that the best way to go about creating a new core group? That's the difference between a focused managerial push towards a rebuild, and this 'call it what you want' build.

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

I knew that as soon as we got into judging examples, this topic would fall off the tracks. For example, there is an interpretation. The more examples, the more interpretations, and the higher likelihood we would disagree on each interpretation. It's a red herring.

What this boils down to is methodology. I'm going to list what I feel are the commonalities in a rebuild, and you do the same. Then, we'll take these interpretations to an independent audience and have them judge which set represents the more expected method in a rebuild. Are you up for it?

Here's my list:

1. Picks are the primary assets in a rebuild.
2. Therefore, what emphasizes the procurement of picks, serves the rebuild best.
3. Trade vets for picks.
4. Seldom trade picks for players, even younger fringe players.
5. During the rebuild window, make sure to have a pick surplus.
6. Do not sign free agents to inflated or long-term deals.
7. Do not over-sign depth players, so as to take spots away from prospects.
8. Weaponize cap space.
9. Depth picks are extremely important as they can yield core/support pieces.
10. Drafting is better than trading and/or signing players.

Does that represent my position?

A few things that doesn't make sense in your argument. Since you are so focus on standings now. From 2010 to 2013 Jets/ALt finished 23 25 22 18 in the standings. 2014 to 2017 Jets finished 23 14 25 20. So if you actually look at the standings there isn't really not much of a difference at all. So I can use 2014 to 2017 as my argument. From that 4 year time frame they had one more pick than the Canucks. If you go back 5 years they average 8 picks a year. 7 years about 7.5 picks. They traded a lot picks for players. Jets rebuild was successful and they didn't use your road map.

When you say Jets is not rebuilding that doesn't make sense. Because you said Oilers did all the criteria of a rebuild except the 10 year time frame. You said it shouldn't take 10 years. Correction Oilers didn't start rebuilding until end of 2010. Oilers finished 21 19 24 from 2009 to 2007. Your definition if you finished around those rankings. You are not rebuilding. So Oilers did your road map from end of 2010 and they didnt have much success doing that. That proves if team are doing your way rebuilding is not always successful.

So now it comes down to either you accept my Jets rebuild example or my Oilers example rebuild. You can't have it both ways. Jets proves that they don't need to follow your map to be successful. Oilers proves that they followed your road map and were not successul

Long story short Hawks jets Oilers Pens Tampa Kings Leafs

Ask yourself this question did those teams Get better because they stacked picks. You can make that argument for Hawks and kings and not others. Either they didn't stacked picks or they did stacked picks but didn't get much out it. Without all those extra picks all those team would still be at the same level.

Pits. They didnt get anything stacking picks So how can use that argument that they becsme a good team because they stacked pick. Doesn't make sense right.
 

joelCAMEL

Registered User
Apr 17, 2018
386
204
Vancouver
Oh look yet another logical fallacy: appeals to authority!

This is a message board where posters debate and there are rules to debates. The only reason this bothers you is because you can't play by fair rules. It's also odd how you talk of "sophistry" yet complain about terms such as "ad hominem" being thrown around. Thats an interesting choice of words for someone positioning themselves as populist. Next you throw out an ad hominem by calling this a "little man forum". Pretty hypocritical. Seems disingenuous.

Can you direct me to where the rules are posted or can you list the rules for me please?
 

coolboarder

Registered User
Mar 4, 2010
1,424
296
Maryland
Not every draft pick is going to hit. That's why you stockpile draft picks so that you have more prospects that you can evaluate over that next 2-year period (longer if they're in Europe or in college. I don't see the problem here. Avoid wasting contract spots on bad players and you can easily sign every worthwhile prospect you draft.




Show me one person who has suggested rushing a prospect. The problem is the Canucks are stockpiling veterans and not creating any room for youth. We're not talking about 18/19 year old prospects here. But 20-22 year old prospects should have spots.



Except they're not rebuilding, so how can you say they're rebuilding the right way? They're overloaded with veterans, with very little rookies. There are barely spots for their prospects to make the team. Players like Goldobin, Dahlen, and even young players like Leipsic don't have a spot. There's barely a spot for Pettersson after the veterans Benning loaded up on this team. If these players aren't good enough to make the NHL at this age then they obviously aren't very good prospects.



That was just a lame BS excuse that people who aren't capable of thinking for themselves bought. You really expect me to believe that Boeser was tired after the pre-season, but was fine the rest of the regular season? Really? Think about it. You seriously don't think Boeser's talent would have come out without Vanek? C'mon man, wake up. Good young players play well. You see it all around the league. Try watching other teams and stop being so Canuck-centric.



See my advice above because you clearly have no clue why Edmonton and Toronto were at the bottom of the league for so long.
Even if you do stockpile the picks, all of your picks could also failed miserably rendering your trades ability useless if you cannot make a right pick from that trade. Look at NYI drafting from 2012 when they focused on all defence in hoping that at least one of them would pan out. Also you failed to take this in account, the value of giving away veterans for picks that is not guaranteed to improve our own club. The only time I would give away veterans is if they refused to extend their contract at the deadlines. With veterans, you do know exactly what you are getting out from him even if you knew that he would cost us a few games. You never want any of your own rookies to cost us a few games and ruin his confidence while you are trying to develop him properly.

If you hope to get a superstar players from the draft, the highest percent seems to be the first round and rest of the rounds are in low percent of seeing one coming. That is why you stay put with your picks if you consider 50 contract limit to account as well. You cannot give away veterans for picks that might not see the ice at all unless you knew that he doesn't want to come back at all. This would be your only opportunity to get some kind of return. Let's say, you get 20-25% of superstars coming out of draft at any given year, and there's 31 teams in the league and your percent of snagging one from the draft are at 0.06%. That is a bad value of stockpiling the picks when you are giving away veterans. The best move is trading the veterans for the youth whose stock is on rise but not enough to make the team, examples such as Goldobin, or Dahlen. 19-years old or even 20 years old shows more than their junior years. You know what you are going to get out from both, a potential as proven in AHL but better chance of translating into the NHL once they figure out the defensive side of the game than any stockpiled draft picks ever will.

Too often that 18-years old players showed promises pre-draft then regress in their +1 years and does not pan out at all. It is too risky of a draft to give away veterans just for 18-years old. Let's say, if the draft age is raised to 19 or even 20 years old then it all makes sense to stockpile picks because their bodies are at the near peak and more matured than the 18-years old bodies to make it easier to evaluate their potentials than the 18-years old players. Perfect example: Sam Bennett. The best move is to not move their draft position and stay put in order and take their picks accordingly.

If our prospects are better than Gagne and I would bet you that Gagne would be put in waivers or trade for any returns they could take. The management are looking for ways for their own prospects that they are better than the veterans they brought in and kick the veterans out. Unfortunately, our own prospects in recent years are not able to do that, therefore they didn't make the team. What makes you think that they would shake the world upside down if they couldn't even beat the recent free agent veterans? That is what Utica is for and to give them time to work their kinks out and become better than the veterans whether it's in-season with call-up or next training camp. Eventually, the cream comes to the top for the prospects. Once this happens, the team would be better for it. Then the team would be more equipped to handle the best of the best in the league in any hockey games. You want to be careful on how you handle the roster as you do not want too many holes in the line-up and finally fill it up 10 years later if your prospects don't pan out.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->