Linden: "We are rebuilding this team"

[48MPHSlapShot]

55 minutes ago, Borvat said:

All draft picks are an eye toward the future so I guess all teams are in a soft re-build.  At the time the pick Gillis took wasn't a "plan" it was a result of not getting what he wanted in a player for player deal so....  arguing one person (Gillis) wanted something but wasn't able to do it doesn't make it happen.  

 

As you said earlier, semantics, we can agree to disagree as I don't share your view or interpretation of re-build.  No worries.  

There is a difference between getting the stock pick that every team gets every year and trading away a proven asset for a pick.

[Canuck Surfer]

22 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Circular Verbal-Hogwash!

 

Rejigging & revamping the retool

Untying & undoing what's uncool

Rethinking repairs

Upgrading unawares

Reuniting the two from a barstool

 

So very profound! 

 

Hold off the hounds...

 

LOL, thats all I got 

[Gaudette Celly]

3 hours ago, chickenman92 said:

How so?

 

The team has gotten worse each year and now plays a brand of hockey which is unwatchable. 

 

The Canucks are bad defensively. Terrible offensively. And have the 29th most points in the NHL over the past two seasons, despite spending right up against the cap.

 

You call that success?  

Er, so you expected to move out veterans and bring rookies onto the roster and have the team improve right away?  Do you understand what a rebuild is and what it involves?  This would explain a great deal why people both don't understand the whole concept nor what it entails.  Surprise: a rebuild is not a switch you simply flip then make the playoffs and become a contender.  It's only been a transition of barely two years, and our best prospects are yet to even make the lineup.

[Borvat]

2 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

There is a difference between getting the stock pick that every team gets every year and trading away a proven asset for a pick.

Absolutely agree, but usually if you are re-building you don't trade a 26 year old starting goaltender with a decent contract that took you 4 years to develop and keep an aging goaltender with an onerous contract.  Here is a little excerpt from one of many articles at the time;

 

Article:

Mike Gillis had it all figured out: Roberto Luongo was the Vancouver Canucks' franchise goaltender with the lifetime contract, and Cory Schneider was expendable. That was three years ago.  A funny thing happened when Schneider became the man and got a new deal, while Luongo asked to be traded. But when Gillis couldn't find a taker for Luongo's massive contract, he remedied the Canucks' goaltending situation by trading Schneider to the New Jersey Devils for the No. 9 pick in Sunday's NHL draft.

"There have been some intervening features that happened," Gillis said. "One of the provisions in the new CBA is to deal with long-term contracts and it is a changing landscape, it affected our opportunities and we had to do everything we have to do in the best way possible for our organization."

That meant trading the 26-year-old goaltender with two years left at a cap hit of $4 million US and holding onto the 34-year-old with eight years left at $5.33 million each. That's certainly not the way Schneider expected things to go.

[Borvat]

2 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Again, if he didn't have one eye toward the future when making that deal, he surely could have gotten something more proven to help us "take another run" the following season.

 

Also, the rumor was that Gillis had deals in place for Kesler that would have gotten us nice hauls (consisting mostly of prospects and picks) for Kesler, which were then shot down by ownership, not to mention that rumor also has it Gillis wanted to rebuild when he was let go.

The rumor I heard was that Gillis was let go because he mis-managed the roster/prospect pool trying to bolster the existing core too long to give them another shot/run.  

 

The impetus of the Kesler trade was because he was a problem (like the Schneider deal based on who starts and they couldn't unload Luongo) in the room and with some team mates (or their girlfriends or wives) and wanted out (rumor that was eventually confirmed)

 

The Kesler issue was brewing for a long time you can google it.  Who trades a prototypical second line center in his late twenties for picks and lesser players.  They are very difficult to replace.

 

If you are re-building you keep the younger cheaper starting goalie that you developed over the aging expensive one and you keep one of the top 2nd line centers in the league who was in his twenties.  You build around these players.

[Provost]

The words don't matter.

 

If we go into the season with both Edler and Tanev... and re-sign Miller, we are re-tooling and not rebuilding.

[Borvat]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

The words don't matter.

 

If we go into the season with both Edler and Tanev... and re-sign Miller, we are re-tooling and not rebuilding.

Bingo.  

[CanadianRugby]

25 minutes ago, Provost said:

The words don't matter.

 

If we go into the season with both Edler and Tanev... and re-sign Miller, we are re-tooling and not rebuilding.

Not necessarily.  Miller won't prevent this team from being one of the worst in franchise history.  Any of Eriksson, Sutter and the Sedins could be moved instead of Edler/Tanev.  As long as the team stockpiles a bunch of draft picks, while not bringing in any expensive vets then it's still a rebuild.  

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said:

Er, so you expected to move out veterans and bring rookies onto the roster and have the team improve right away?  Do you understand what a rebuild is and what it involves?  This would explain a great deal why people both don't understand the whole concept nor what it entails.  Surprise: a rebuild is not a switch you simply flip then make the playoffs and become a contender.  It's only been a transition of barely two years, and our best prospects are yet to even make the lineup.

 Somebody neg'd you for this! 

 

I got you bruh.

[apollo]

On 4/26/2017 at 1:28 PM, HerrDrFunk said:

Because Linden can't wave a magic wand and move every player over 30. 

We've only got 3 guys over 30: Daniel, Hank and Loui 

 

Linden doesn't have to move a every player over 30. 

[aGENT]

21 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Not necessarily.  Miller won't prevent this team from being one of the worst in franchise history.  Any of Eriksson, Sutter and the Sedins could be moved instead of Edler/Tanev.  As long as the team stockpiles a bunch of draft picks, while not bringing in any expensive vets then it's still a rebuild.  

Don't forget sacrificing the chicken! 

[HerrDrFunk]

11 minutes ago, apollo said:

We've only got 3 guys over 30: Daniel, Hank and Loui 

 

Linden doesn't have to move a every player over 30. 

Edler too. 

 

I was being sarcastic but from a couple of people's responses in this thread, they still don't consider this a rebuild unless we go full Toronto and dump all veterans.....despite the fact that Toronto didn't do that either.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

On 4/26/2017 at 1:50 PM, HerrDrFunk said:

Underpants is a funnier word.

Jokes on you - I go 'commando style'....

[48MPHSlapShot]

4 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Not necessarily.  Miller won't prevent this team from being one of the worst in franchise history.  Any of Eriksson, Sutter and the Sedins could be moved instead of Edler/Tanev.  As long as the team stockpiles a bunch of draft picks, while not bringing in any expensive vets then it's still a rebuild.  

Bingo.

[aGENT]

You guys are hilarious with your tiny, little, one-size-fits-all box that a team must rebuild within...

[two drink minimum]

4 hours ago, Borvat said:

Absolutely agree, but usually if you are re-building you don't trade a 26 year old starting goaltender with a decent contract that took you 4 years to develop and keep an aging goaltender with an onerous contract.  Here is a little excerpt from one of many articles at the time;

 

Article:

Mike Gillis had it all figured out: Roberto Luongo was the Vancouver Canucks' franchise goaltender with the lifetime contract, and Cory Schneider was expendable. That was three years ago.  A funny thing happened when Schneider became the man and got a new deal, while Luongo asked to be traded. But when Gillis couldn't find a taker for Luongo's massive contract, he remedied the Canucks' goaltending situation by trading Schneider to the New Jersey Devils for the No. 9 pick in Sunday's NHL draft.

"There have been some intervening features that happened," Gillis said. "One of the provisions in the new CBA is to deal with long-term contracts and it is a changing landscape, it affected our opportunities and we had to do everything we have to do in the best way possible for our organization."

That meant trading the 26-year-old goaltender with two years left at a cap hit of $4 million US and holding onto the 34-year-old with eight years left at $5.33 million each. That's certainly not the way Schneider expected things to go.

The day Gillis signed Luongo to that ridiculous contract I foresaw it as a huge albatross. He had an up and coming star in Scneids yet he hands out an 11 year contract to a 32 year old goaltender who completely melted in Boston not once but three times in the fianls. Lets not forget the previous two years the Blackhawks perforated him when the series was on the line. I was a fan of Gillis but that was a horrendous contract extension.

[Pete M]

7 hours ago, oldnews said:

LOL.

Not enough vets left! 

That's worrisome! 

Young guys need to setp up!

 

I guess the newsflash was actually necessary.

 

News flash...they've finished second to last

[appleboy]

Just because Linden has said the word rebuild dose not mean they strip it to the bone. They need to maintain a veteran presence. There could be some moves this year and more next. They could resign Miller but I would hope for a year to a time. 

We don't want the club to be so bad that it is demoralizing.  There was enough wins this year to make things entertainin. 

I could still see a D man moved. Tanev, maybe. 

Can't wait for Saterday. I expect 5th but it is still a shot at higher. You never know.

[Pete M]

10 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

You do realize how old Vey, Sutter, Gudbranson, and Etem are?  Larsen was a cheap 5th round gamble to try to get the PP going -- unless you'd rather have re-signed Weber?  Dorsett was brought in to bring some grit and set an example for the kids how to approach and play the game -- unless you'd rather have the Canucks rag-dolled with no pushback even more than they typically are?  LIkewise for Prust, and to get Kassian away from the kids.

 

So instead of these players you'd rather have kept Garrison, Weber, Higgins, Schroeder, Jensen, and all sorts of AHL-fodder?  It's management's job to not only put a competitive but entertaining product on the ice.

Either way you look at it, it hasn't been good. 

 

For all the accolades that JB has got from being a big part of the Bruins success, he has faltered here with the Canucks...3 and 2 from last and counting.

[CanadianRugby]

24 minutes ago, J.R. said:

You guys are hilarious with your tiny, little, one-size-fits-all box that a team must rebuild within...

You, Baggins and Oldnews are hilarious at rejecting the mountain of evidence that supports that this is almost exclusively the only way that teams win the Cup.  You're like the climate change denying flat earth theorists of CDC.