Philip Larsen | #63 | D

[Crabcakes]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

That's a good point Hugor.  JB manned up, and tried his philosophy of competing while rebuilding.  How long does he continue down this path, before accepting it's not working?

I don't think there's a whole lot more that he can do in terms of making the team more competitive other than just let players develop.  

 

If we can agree that Benning started with a team that had some young players just drafted, an older core and not many players in their prime.  

 

Moving forward, Benning wanted key positions filled by veterans who could play.  So, the top line, top pair and a goalie at a minimum.  These players could take key match ups, mentor the young guys etc etc.  That was the framework.

 

Then, he had to go about trying to fill in for a lack of players in their prime.  The thing is, there weren't a lot of assets that he could part with without taking apart this framework.  He's done what he could but he wasn't able to get top end players in their prime because of cap constraints and he didn't have the assets to make hockey deals.  There were some successes:  Sutter, Granlund, Baertschi, Sbisa, Stecher, Gudbranson.  And some failures.  I'm not sure you could call Larsen a failure yet since he is injured.  Stecher has filled the role that Benning was looking for when he traded for Larsen.  To date, Stecher just looks like a better player.  I would expect Larsen to be back in Europe next year.

 

Benning has rolled through a lot of players but at this point, I think he just has to wait on young players to develop and continue drafting well.

 

And don't forget, the team is transitioning.  This means that they're relying more on players under 25 who are not yet in their prime.  At the same time, the Sedin's aren't producing as well as they have done in the past.  So, the team has struggled.

 

 

[-AJ-]

52 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

I don't think there's a whole lot more that he can do in terms of making the team more competitive other than just let players develop.  

 

If we can agree that Benning started with a team that had some young players just drafted, an older core and not many players in their prime.  

 

Moving forward, Benning wanted key positions filled by veterans who could play.  So, the top line, top pair and a goalie at a minimum.  These players could take key match ups, mentor the young guys etc etc.  That was the framework.

 

Then, he had to go about trying to fill in for a lack of players in their prime.  The thing is, there weren't a lot of assets that he could part with without taking apart this framework.  He's done what he could but he wasn't able to get top end players in their prime because of cap constraints and he didn't have the assets to make hockey deals.  There were some successes:  Sutter, Granlund, Baertschi, Sbisa, Stecher, Gudbranson.  And some failures.  I'm not sure you could call Larsen a failure yet since he is injured.  Stecher has filled the role that Benning was looking for when he traded for Larsen.  To date, Stecher just looks like a better player.  I would expect Larsen to be back in Europe next year.

 

Benning has rolled through a lot of players but at this point, I think he just has to wait on young players to develop and continue drafting well.

 

And don't forget, the team is transitioning.  This means that they're relying more on players under 25 who are not yet in their prime.  At the same time, the Sedin's aren't producing as well as they have done in the past.  So, the team has struggled.

 

 

I think Benning is trying to avoid the Oilers' problem where once they got rid of all of their veterans, they were left with just an extremely young team. Benning wants to have a variety of ages so as to prevent a team with no potential experience to help guide the young guys.

[Crabcakes]

5 minutes ago, ajhockey said:

I think Benning is trying to avoid the Oilers' problem where once they got rid of all of their veterans, they were left with just an extremely young team. Benning wants to have a variety of ages so as to prevent a team with no potential experience to help guide the young guys.

Exactly, a team always needs players of all age groups.  Without players who can produce a team will suck.  This is usually players in their prime and what the Canucks lack.

 

But you also need older veterans as you say.  Notice how Chirelli has added players over 27.  And Shanahan.

 

I've said this for years.  The ideal age grouping of a team has 2 players from each year aged 21-33.....that's 24 players.  No team actually looks like this but the team would be easy to renew itself and could be done through the draft alone.  It gets the benefit of youthful enthusiasm, veteran leadership and fully half the team is in their prime.

[Alflives]

2 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

I don't think there's a whole lot more that he can do in terms of making the team more competitive other than just let players develop.  

 

If we can agree that Benning started with a team that had some young players just drafted, an older core and not many players in their prime.  

 

Moving forward, Benning wanted key positions filled by veterans who could play.  So, the top line, top pair and a goalie at a minimum.  These players could take key match ups, mentor the young guys etc etc.  That was the framework.

 

Then, he had to go about trying to fill in for a lack of players in their prime.  The thing is, there weren't a lot of assets that he could part with without taking apart this framework.  He's done what he could but he wasn't able to get top end players in their prime because of cap constraints and he didn't have the assets to make hockey deals.  There were some successes:  Sutter, Granlund, Baertschi, Sbisa, Stecher, Gudbranson.  And some failures.  I'm not sure you could call Larsen a failure yet since he is injured.  Stecher has filled the role that Benning was looking for when he traded for Larsen.  To date, Stecher just looks like a better player.  I would expect Larsen to be back in Europe next year.

 

Benning has rolled through a lot of players but at this point, I think he just has to wait on young players to develop and continue drafting well.

 

And don't forget, the team is transitioning.  This means that they're relying more on players under 25 who are not yet in their prime.  At the same time, the Sedin's aren't producing as well as they have done in the past.  So, the team has struggled.

 

 

I accept this as Benning's plan, but at what point does the owner say it's not working, and bring in several meone new: 5, 7, or 20 years?  How long does JB have to show his retool philosophy works?

[73 Percent]

39 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I accept this as Benning's plan, but at what point does the owner say it's not working, and bring in several meone new: 5, 7, or 20 years?  How long does JB have to show his retool philosophy works?

How do you know this isnt an owner philosophy right now?

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, Gooseberries said:

How do you know this isnt an owner philosophy right now?

I heard those rumours too, but whatever it was intended to be, it looks like we are headed for several years of top five picks anyway, so the results the same.

[73 Percent]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

I heard those rumours too, but whatever it was intended to be, it looks like we are headed for several years of top five picks anyway, so the results the same.

So maybe lay off linden and benning because you (and I) don't know the full story?

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Gooseberries said:

So maybe lay off technology and benning because you (and I) don't know the full story?

Do you think our owner could have been pushing to d aft JV that first draft, to sell seats, create excitement?  Like you say, we don't know the level of involvement at the ownership level.  

Really, does JV have the "character" JB says is most important in his draft picks?  Maybe there is something in that JV pick too?

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

I accept this as Benning's plan, but at what point does the owner say it's not working, and bring in several meone new: 5, 7, or 20 years?  How long does JB have to show his retool philosophy works?

To be fair to any plan, you need to give it at least 5 years.  At that point we'll all be able to connect the dots and know that it's going to work.  Better results are going to be more like 7 years....that would put Horvat at 25 and just entering his prime.

[Crabcakes]

I think that we also have to understand that our opinions are largely formed by the media.  They can be anyways if we're not careful.

 

The media is in a state of flux right now.  Print media, where we used to get most of our information is going extinct.  Guys like Botchford, Kuzma, McIntyre, Willis are forced to market themselves in order to keep their careers going.  Years ago, all they had to do was write their columns and collect their pay.  Today, they are interviewed on TV and Radio, they engage in social media and podcasts.  And they have to get noticed because they make their living from multiple sources.  Getting noticed means they have to say controversial things.  Jumping up and down and saying fire the coach or GM gets them noticed.  Saying that white is black also gets them noticed.  But what they say is usually their opinion and is often wrong.

 

The media asks Linden if they have been discussing whether or not to fire Willie and his response is that it hasn't even been suggested in the front office.  What the media has been railing about for weeks isn't even on managements radar screen.  It's to the point where I can't believe a word I hear from the media.

[Nuxfanabroad]

44 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

I think that we also have to understand that our opinions are largely formed by the media.  They can be anyways if we're not careful.

 

The media is in a state of flux right now.  Print media, where we used to get most of our information is going extinct.  Guys like Botchford, Kuzma, McIntyre, Willis are forced to market themselves in order to keep their careers going.  Years ago, all they had to do was write their columns and collect their pay.  Today, they are interviewed on TV and Radio, they engage in social media and podcasts.  And they have to get noticed because they make their living from multiple sources.  Getting noticed means they have to say controversial things.  Jumping up and down and saying fire the coach or GM gets them noticed.  Saying that white is black also gets them noticed.  But what they say is usually their opinion and is often wrong.

 

The media asks Linden if they have been discussing whether or not to fire Willie and his response is that it hasn't even been suggested in the front office.  What the media has been railing about for weeks isn't even on managements radar screen.  It's to the point where I can't believe a word I hear from the media.

Precisely.

[canucklehead44]

We threw away a 5th round pick. Wasn't Larsen was a UFA? I doubt teams were lining up to pay him a one-way contract for over 1 million. 

In the end, who really cares. I wasn't expecting this team to work out. Would have preferred if we kept the pick (afterall, we recently drafted  Neill, Gaudette, Hutton, Forsling, Corrado in the 5th round) and threw that million at BC boy Patrick Wiercoch to see if any of his 2013-2014 offense was hidden inside somehwere. 8 points in 30 games - not really, but marginally better than Larsen's PPG plus he is bigger (and I doubt he gets the same PP time). 

[-AJ-]

24 minutes ago, canucklehead44 said:

We threw away a 5th round pick. Wasn't Larsen was a UFA? I doubt teams were lining up to pay him a one-way contract for over 1 million. 

In the end, who really cares. I wasn't expecting this team to work out. Would have preferred if we kept the pick (afterall, we recently drafted  Neill, Gaudette, Hutton, Forsling, Corrado in the 5th round) and threw that million at BC boy Patrick Wiercoch to see if any of his 2013-2014 offense was hidden inside somehwere. 8 points in 30 games - not really, but marginally better than Larsen's PPG plus he is bigger (and I doubt he gets the same PP time). 

We've had better luck with 5th rounders than most teams it seems. Generally, 5th rounders never play an NHL game, so I'd say it was a worthwhile risk. 

[ice orca]

15 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

I think that we also have to understand that our opinions are largely formed by the media.  They can be anyways if we're not careful.

 

The media is in a state of flux right now.  Print media, where we used to get most of our information is going extinct.  Guys like Botchford, Kuzma, McIntyre, Willis are forced to market themselves in order to keep their careers going.  Years ago, all they had to do was write their columns and collect their pay.  Today, they are interviewed on TV and Radio, they engage in social media and podcasts.  And they have to get noticed because they make their living from multiple sources.  Getting noticed means they have to say controversial things.  Jumping up and down and saying fire the coach or GM gets them noticed.  Saying that white is black also gets them noticed.  But what they say is usually their opinion and is often wrong.

 

The media asks Linden if they have been discussing whether or not to fire Willie and his response is that it hasn't even been suggested in the front office.  What the media has been railing about for weeks isn't even on managements radar screen.  It's to the point where I can't believe a word I hear from the media.

So CDC has better insight than the local media regarding the state of the Canuck's?you would think so after listening to a lot on here. Some like I-Mac who is almost an org shill have his head scratching at some things the org says. Sometimes you have to separate the chaff from the wheat, not all of them are 100 percent wrong on their speculations.

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, ice orca said:

So CDC has better insight than the local media regarding the state of the Canuck's?you would think so after listening to a lot on here. Some like I-Mac who is almost an org shill have his head scratching at some things the org says. Sometimes you have to separate the chaff from the wheat, not all of them are 100 percent wrong on their speculations.

When guys like Bob Mckenzie are publicly saying "what rebuild" when asked about our rebuild, then we as fans should wonder just what the heck is going on here, no?

[Crabcakes]

3 hours ago, ice orca said:

So CDC has better insight than the local media regarding the state of the Canuck's?you would think so after listening to a lot on here. Some like I-Mac who is almost an org shill have his head scratching at some things the org says. Sometimes you have to separate the chaff from the wheat, not all of them are 100 percent wrong on their speculations.

I'm saying that many in the media have a self serving agenda.

 

If you listen to the interviews directly with Linden or Benning, you will get a better idea of what's really going on.

 

There's speculation out there that Willie's job is on the line based on the results the Canucks are having.  When asked directly, and it's not that he denies it, it's the puzzled response as if to say "where on earth did you hear this?"  Speculation like this is little more than click bait.

 

Some people on CDC have good critical thinking skills while others just accept what they hear from mainstream media.  

[Alflives]

49 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

I'm saying that many in the media have a self serving agenda.

 

If you listen to the interviews directly with Linden or Benning, you will get a better idea of what's really going on.

 

There's speculation out there that Willie's job is on the line based on the results the Canucks are having.  When asked directly, and it's not that he denies it, it's the puzzled response as if to say "where on earth did you hear this?"  Speculation like this is little more than click bait.

 

Some people on CDC have good critical thinking skills while others just accept what they hear from mainstream media.  

To be balanced in opinion CC, what does one expect Trevor's answer to be if asked about his coach?  Remember this is the very same Trevor that began his Presidency with a lie to Steve Darling on TV, when asked a direct question.  Trevor is in a political position, so he chooses his words carefully, which (in some cases) will mean a direct lie.  

 

[-AJ-]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

To be balanced in opinion CC, what does one expect Trevor's answer to be if asked about his coach?  Remember this is the very same Trevor that began his Presidency with a lie to Steve Darling on TV, when asked a direct question.  Trevor is in a political position, so he chooses his words carefully, which (in some cases) will mean a direct lie.  

 

I think you will see this from both the media and the Canucks, meaning that the answer is perhaps often somewhere in between the two extremes. 

[aGENT]

On 25/12/2016 at 1:50 PM, Alflives said:

I accept this as Benning's plan, but at what point does the owner say it's not working, and bring in several meone new: 5, 7, or 20 years?  How long does JB have to show his retool philosophy works?

 

On 25/12/2016 at 2:30 PM, Gooseberries said:

How do you know this isnt an owner philosophy right now?

 

Who says it's not working? 

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

 

Who says it's not working? 

Are you suggesting JB's retool plan is to finish bottom five, and not even sniff the playoff bar?