What Are Your Thoughts of What A Rebuild Is?

[bobbyg43]

On 2017-10-17 at 3:56 PM, TheGuardian_ said:

One aspect of rebuilding involves trading, it is a must otherwise the team sits in mediocrity unless they get lucky with a lottery.

 

As the Canucks team needs to rebuild sooner than later trades become more important and necessary.

One thing about the dismal standings is the added value to draft picks.

The Canucks pro scouts need to start being very active researching active prospects in systems where players can't crack the line up, like Vancouver used to be when the Hank and Kesler with Richardson were the centers, even decent players could not crack the line up either by skill or due to hurting the chemistry/room.

The owners have to allow the management group to spend to the limit so they can use the cap as a trade incentive, okay they do that here already.

 

If management feels as they say, the draft is just being lucky, then they should have no problem trading draft picks for high end prospects, first line prospects not cast offs of other teams or players teams have given up on.

 

Even Edmonton's team for all the years of drafting high has more traded for players than draft picks, ditto Pittsburgh.

 

Very well said analogy. I would agree but cannot see JB empowering scouts to draft ,I see Jim micro managing to the ultimate degree here. After all he has supposedly has the super scout pedigree attached to him when he was selected to manage here.To me more an more if is becoming clear that he really does not have a crystal ball.there is mounting evidence to suggest his picks over the ones he passed on where at very least questionable as best player available, the jury is still out on this ,but if he was wrong it will only push the team out another 4 or 5 years  like Oilers,an he may be long gone by that time.I do like Green as coach his style in game to challenge an go up tempo this is refreshing, an he makes in game adjustments.

i would say off the cuff he has at draft table a whole lot more talented players to chose from than MG did in his tenure.

 

I tend to believe an think Trevor Linden has started the big refocus on the farm system an development at that level .

 

I am very stingy by nature an do not concur with giving picks away at the early start of his tenure and if Jim thought we were that close then his judgement is skewered an suspect about NHL game of team . Now we have no choice but to stockpile as talent has been devoid on farm for along time now . It is refreshing to see it being restocked now an encouraging. 

 

[DefCon1]

Rebuild is a work in progress but we do have a bright future even though we seem to lack some elite players right now. I know Horvat, Boeser, Baertschi, Granlund, Stecher and maybe Guddy are already proving themselves or proven commodity. Virtanen is still a wait and see player and am not so sure about Hutton as a top 4 but he seems like a work in progress player similar to Pouliot. Now we have some great blue chippers like Pettersson, Dahlen, Demko and possibly Joulevi (if he improves more). I think the team is getting the needed depth but the problem is waiting to see if we have an elite player in that bunch. Am hoping Demko and Pettersson become those elite players that this team needs and hope Joulevi meets the expectations. I think the team is making good progress, maybe not as fast as the Leafs but better than the Oilers rebuild. The Oilers so called rebuild seems done yet they still don't have that "it" factor even with McDavid and Drai. 

[DefCon1]

On 10/17/2017 at 11:54 AM, 189lb enforcers? said:

As long as JB can cut some roots if the ream is overachieving and force it to stay in a position to draft impact players, I will be satisfied with the result.

 

If this team finishes out of lotto contention, I will consider this a failure of management's execution of a rebuild plan. 

 

Finishing out of the lotto means we made the playoffs, isn't that what any team wants? Although I also think this team does need one or 2 more high draft picks that can turn elite. 

[TheGuardian_]

13 hours ago, bobbyg43 said:

Very well said analogy. I would agree but cannot see JB empowering scouts to draft ,I see Jim micro managing to the ultimate degree here. After all he has supposedly has the super scout pedigree attached to him when he was selected to manage here.To me more an more if is becoming clear that he really does not have a crystal ball.there is mounting evidence to suggest his picks over the ones he passed on where at very least questionable as best player available, the jury is still out on this ,but if he was wrong it will only push the team out another 4 or 5 years  like Oilers,an he may be long gone by that time.I do like Green as coach his style in game to challenge an go up tempo this is refreshing, an he makes in game adjustments.

i would say off the cuff he has at draft table a whole lot more talented players to chose from than MG did in his tenure.

 

I tend to believe an think Trevor Linden has started the big refocus on the farm system an development at that level .

 

I am very stingy by nature an do not concur with giving picks away at the early start of his tenure and if Jim thought we were that close then his judgement is skewered an suspect about NHL game of team . Now we have no choice but to stockpile as talent has been devoid on farm for along time now . It is refreshing to see it being restocked now an encouraging. 

 

I am thinking that the hiring of Linden and Benning were nothing more than marketing tools.

 

Linden because he had such a high profile in the community and Benning was given the "super scout" designation so they could sell "the future" to the fans. Sort of "believe in our super scout that these players will be great even if it takes years". Benning hadn't really been scouting for Boston for some time and if you watched the Bruins behind the scene's stuff you would see he didn't have hardly any input to drafting, he just kind of sat there most of the time. He was quite vocal in agreeing to trade Sequin though.

[canucksnihilist]

A rebuild is sacrificing the present for the sake of the future.  By trading away assets for younger potential.

 

When a team is making the playoffs, they trade away picks to bolster the team, to help them win now.

 

When a team isn't making the playoffs, they don't trade away picks, so they usually rebuild naturally.  But they don't sacrifice the present for the sake of the future.

 

Canucks:  They are rebuilding now - they certainly participated in the trade deadline last year.  Some would say that they missed the opportunity for a few years previously to last year when their assets could still be traded for something - which was the reason for all the controversy... the team said they didn't need to rebuild, but they were forced to in the end anyways (they "backed into" the rebuild), which made the management team look foolish and incompetent.  They saw the team with rose colored glasses, they couldn't see reality.   Anyways it's over now - we lost a bunch of players for nothing when they became UFAs, which has really hurt the rebuild imho... by a few years.  Last year was the START of the rebuild.  

 

Anyways I think the 3 definitions are accurate - you may or may not agree with my assesment of the Canucks.  Certainly I'm happy to see the team on the right track... finally (even if they were forced into it by reality

[Baggins]

7 hours ago, canucksnihilist said:

A rebuild is sacrificing the present for the sake of the future.  By trading away assets for younger potential.

 

When a team is making the playoffs, they trade away picks to bolster the team, to help them win now.

 

When a team isn't making the playoffs, they don't trade away picks, so they usually rebuild naturally.  But they don't sacrifice the present for the sake of the future.

 

Canucks:  They are rebuilding now - they certainly participated in the trade deadline last year.  Some would say that they missed the opportunity for a few years previously to last year when their assets could still be traded for something - which was the reason for all the controversy... the team said they didn't need to rebuild, but they were forced to in the end anyways (they "backed into" the rebuild), which made the management team look foolish and incompetent.  They saw the team with rose colored glasses, they couldn't see reality.   Anyways it's over now - we lost a bunch of players for nothing when they became UFAs, which has really hurt the rebuild imho... by a few years.  Last year was the START of the rebuild.  

 

Anyways I think the 3 definitions are accurate - you may or may not agree with my assesment of the Canucks.  Certainly I'm happy to see the team on the right track... finally (even if they were forced into it by reality

You'll need to supply a quote to back up that kind of bull.

[Riviera82]

20 hours ago, DefCon1 said:

Finishing out of the lotto means we made the playoffs, isn't that what any team wants? Although I also think this team does need one or 2 more high draft picks that can turn elite. 

I'd say not necessarily. It depends on where the team is at in terms of progress in their rebuild and what the team hopes to accomplish once their rebuild is deemed complete. 

 

As of right now, the Canucks look like they'd need everything to go right for them while everything goes wrong for numerous other teams within the western conference for them to make the playoffs. That might be good for the owners to get a couple of home playoff gates, but long-term it would most likely stunt what is an incomplete Canuck rebuild. It would be an anomaly not unlike what happened in 2015.

 

If the Canucks ultimate objective is to be a playoff contender or "bubble team", well then in my opinion they're about 3/4 through their rebuild. If they ever want to be a consistent cup challenger then they still have a long way to go; because even during the glory years of '09 -'12 and how good that team appeared to be, as it turned out they were still a 'paper tiger' of sorts, only able to knock on the door one time unsuccessfully before fading away. I'd like our rebuilt team to be a serious threat for years in a row with hopefully at least one championship to show for it. It'll take a lot more pain to get there. Squeezing into the playoffs now before they're truly on the upswing would be counterproductive to that end.

 

 

 

 

[DefCon1]

17 minutes ago, Riviera82 said:

I'd say not necessarily. It depends on where the team is at in terms of progress in their rebuild and what the team hopes to accomplish once their rebuild is deemed complete. 

 

As of right now, the Canucks look like they'd need everything to go right for them while everything goes wrong for numerous other teams within the western conference for them to make the playoffs. That might be good for the owners to get a couple of home playoff gates, but long-term it would most likely stunt what is an incomplete Canuck rebuild. It would be an anomaly not unlike what happened in 2015.

 

If the Canucks ultimate objective is to be a playoff contender or "bubble team", well then in my opinion they're about 3/4 through their rebuild. If they ever want to be a consistent cup challenger then they still have a long way to go; because even during the glory years of '09 -'12 and how good that team appeared to be, as it turned out they were still a 'paper tiger' of sorts, only able to knock on the door one time unsuccessfully before fading away. I'd like our rebuilt team to be a serious threat for years in a row with hopefully at least one championship to show for it. It'll take a lot more pain to get there. Squeezing into the playoffs now before they're truly on the upswing would be counterproductive to that end.

 

 

 

 

This is dependent on how JB picks and how he trades. Look at the Leafs rebuild then look at the Oilers rebuild. The Leafs have the right management, great scouts and a coach that is good in developing young players and also has tons of experience. It didn't take the Leafs too long to rebuild after the management change and also had a bit of luck in getting Matthews. In a couple of years the Canucks could finish the rebuild if the top picks develop properly and we hit the lotto jackpot and draft a superstar. If your rebuild takes more than 10 years, something is very wrong.

[xereau]

A rebuild is 4 players left from the 2011 Stanley Cup run.

[canucksnihilist]

On 2017-10-20 at 6:54 PM, Baggins said:

You'll need to supply a quote to back up that kind of bull.

Haha it is common knowledge that the team wasn’t embracing a full rebuild.  

[Gaudette Celly]

On 10/15/2017 at 11:47 AM, shazzam said:

Unfortunately the rebuild has not started yet. Learn from what Toronto did recently. Clean house

The irony is that by any metric, the Canucks have done more of a rebuild than Toronto the past three years.

[Baggins]

Just now, canucksnihilist said:

Haha it is common knowledge that the team wasn’t embracing a full rebuild.  

So they never said they didn't need to rebuild. Just made up bull on your part.

 

Just because they didn't intentionally tank the team doesn't mean they haven't been rebuilding since they took over. It's been perfectly obvious they've been rebuilding to many of us.

 

“Obviously we’ve been forthright in saying we’ve been transitioning as a team to a younger group and that was becoming a bit of a sticking point with some people. So to get alignment with our fans and our media I used the rebuild word today, which everyone can get their head around.

 

“If that word makes everyone happier then I’m more than happy to use it.”

 

 

So according to Linden they've been rebuilding since the beginning. For those that couldn't figure it out themselves he finally used the word 'rebuild' to make it clear for them.

[189lb enforcers?]

On 2017-10-20 at 8:17 PM, xereau said:

A rebuild is 4 players left from the 2011 Stanley Cup run.

3/4 of which are/were core players... still with the team. 

Sounds like a retool. 

[189lb enforcers?]

9 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

The irony is that by any metric, the Canucks have done more of a rebuild than Toronto the past three years.

Maybe you mean, coincidence?

Why did you stop at 3 years? The Leafs unloaded quite a bit 4 years ago, which seems like cherry picking, no? 

 

Still, it's not about quantity here, it's quality. 

The Leafs traded out their best players; their captain and sniper, to tank and truely rebuild through the draft.

Whereas the Canucks traded almost everything, but their best players.

(even the Kesler trade, scumbag teammate, who demanded a trade, wasn't traded for a rebuilding of the core effort)

 

Just because the Canucks traded away most of the role and support players, while keeping their best assets, doesn't mean they were in a more aggressive rebuild during those three years than the Leafs. 

[189lb enforcers?]

8 hours ago, Baggins said:

So they never said they didn't need to rebuild. Just made up bull on your part.

 

Just because they didn't intentionally tank the team doesn't mean they haven't been rebuilding since they took over. It's been perfectly obvious they've been rebuilding to many of us.

 

“Obviously we’ve been forthright in saying we’ve been transitioning as a team to a younger group and that was becoming a bit of a sticking point with some people. So to get alignment with our fans and our media I used the rebuild word today, which everyone can get their head around.

 

“If that word makes everyone happier then I’m more than happy to use it.”

 

 

So according to Linden they've been rebuilding since the beginning. For those that couldn't figure it out themselves he finally used the word 'rebuild' to make it clear for them.

Younger support players being phased in... I don't think anyone in here defined that as a rebuild. In fact, Chicago, must have been rebuilding all this time too, if I apply your logic there. 

 

Rebuilding the core, is rebuilding. Toronto truely attempted and successfully rebuilt theirs, or is in the final stages of it. Had the Canucks moved their best players out 4 years ago, instead of "it wouldn't be fair" strategies, the core might be closer to be being finished rebuilding, like the Leafs' is. 

[ilduce39]

1 hour ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Younger support players being phased in... I don't think anyone in here defined that as a rebuild. In fact, Chicago, must have been rebuilding all this time too, if I apply your logic there. 

 

Rebuilding the core, is rebuilding. Toronto truely attempted and successfully rebuilt theirs, or is in the final stages of it. Had the Canucks moved their best players out 4 years ago, instead of "it wouldn't be fair" strategies, the core might be closer to be being finished rebuilding, like the Leafs' is. 

Who have they kept that would accept a trade?  

 

Twins/Edler have said no.  

 

Tanev, then?  

 

Other spare parts would recoup nebulous mid-round draft picks everyone is clamouring for... but are not a reliable way to rebuild a core.  

 

We've had high 1sts and our one low 1st was a home run.  

 

It takes time.  

[EdgarM]

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎15 at 11:14 AM, bloodycanuckleheads said:

There should never be a rebuild.  Never.  Ever.  If you are in a position where you basically need to fire everyone and start from scratch - that implies years and years of horrendous mismanagement (and a complete inability to judge players or think-ahead). 

 

It should never get that far.  You should never have management that's that far removed from reality.  It should never get to the point where you need a rebuild.  You should have seen the problems coming literally years in advance (and done something about it).

 

So, yeah, a rebuild is irrefutable evidence that your management has been horrifically incompetent for a very, very long time.  That's what a rebuild is.

Well said. Not to mention that if you are thinking of replacing your entire 23 man roster and you plan on building them mainly from the draft then that could take an extremely long time and there is no guarantee ALL of the draftees work out.

Then there is the matter of we are in a CAP system era where you can "buy" deficiencies you have in your line up. How can a team like Edmonton be in a position where they are now and Vegas be in a position where they are now and they are a newly developed expansion team. I remember past expansion teams being bad, really bad on the onset.

Teams should be always trying to improve each position every year no matter where you finished in the standings the year before.

[Alflives]

Just now, ilduce39 said:

Who have they kept that would accept a trade?  

 

Twins/Edler have said no.  

 

Tanev, then?  

 

Other spare parts would recoup nebulous mid-round draft picks everyone is clamouring for... but are not a reliable way to rebuild a core.  

 

We've had high 1sts and our one low 1st was a home run.  

 

It takes time.  

Yes, a good rebuild takes time.  But with those high firsts, if they are misses,  the time of the rebuild gets extended, or the finished product is a lot weaker than it could have been.  Yes, we have Boeser.  That’s one out of four.  Either our finished product is a lot weaker than it could have been, or the rebuild takes more time than what could have been, without the missed picks.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Well said. Not to mention that if you are thinking of replacing your entire 23 man roster and you plan on building them mainly from the draft then that could take an extremely long time and there is no guarantee ALL of the draftees work out.

Then there is the matter of we are in a CAP system era where you can "buy" deficiencies you have in your line up. How can a team like Edmonton be in a position where they are now and Vegas be in a position where they are now and they are a newly developed expansion team. I remember past expansion teams being bad, really bad on the onset.

Teams should be always trying to improve each position every year no matter where you finished in the standings the year before.

How do teams improve on their key core players, if not through high first round draft picks - especially the forwards?  

[ilduce39]

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Yes, a good rebuild takes time.  But with those high firsts, if they are misses,  the time of the rebuild gets extended, or the finished product is a lot weaker than it could have been.  Yes, we have Boeser.  That’s one out of four.  Either our finished product is a lot weaker than it could have been, or the rebuild takes more time than what could have been, without the missed picks.

Draft pick discussion is a different debate than "are they rebuilding or not."

 

All teams want to maximize their draft picks. 

 

It could still work out - this fan base is clamouring to hop on some 18 year old's jock strap but the rebuild needs time. Having guys develop over a few years doesn't hurt.  

 

Assuming they pan out.