What Are Your Thoughts of What A Rebuild Is?

[TheGuardian_]

45 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

The flipside is, though, that it's far too easy for people to "glom on" to an idea that then generates momentum.  We've been throwing everyone under the bus for the past while....I remember "fire AV" then "MG" and Willie D, etc.  So it becomes an easy comment.   AV was one of my favourites, yet people would be all over him at the first hint of a loss.  So that's become a common theme...to find a scapegoat at the first opportunity and run with it.  Often, without justification.

Quite often the idea to "glom on" an idea is media driven. The lemmings just follow suit.

 

When AV was first here I was totally against his coaching system, he was given credit for things he shouldn't have been. The team had just missed the playoffs by a very few points the year before and they had just traded for Luongo. Then, AV's system was truly dump and chase and if not for Luongo playing the best years of his career that system would not have been successful. As the years went by and he gave up the room to the players the system changed to more puck possession, something that Naslund had criticized AV for not doing. AV was not and still isn't a very good "game" coach and I still believe that if he had not played favourites the team may have been more successful in the cup run. To me he made two glaring mistakes, one he asked Luongo if he wanted to play after being thumped in Boston, he should never have done that he should have just started Schnides (Schnides also had a large fan base in Boston) and the other was not playing healthy players over injured ones, even a "fresh and healthy" 3rd liner would out perform tired, injured players on either team, that is where a few playoff heroes have come from.

 

WD, it didn't matter what he did he was a caretaker coach, the team just wasn't any good.

 

Gillis was not a huge friend of the media, AV was, so with AV's sacking they were against Gillis and any moves he made including the very best coach in the NHL for training rookies to play in the NHL, so the media led the fans and they were canned.

 

Same thing happened with Willie although I never thought he should have been there anyway, he was a career AHL coach and not used to dealing with players that would take shifts off, he was used to players doing anything to keep their jobs giving him vastly more authority over their playing careers.

 

The media loved Linden and by extension Benning so they have sat back and been quiet for 3 years, only now and then stating borderline hesitation of the running of the team. Gillis is still blamed today for things that happened 7+ years ago during the cup run and President trophy years.

 

With 1040 now being the rival station and not controlled by either Rogers media or the Canucks, they are being a little bit more realistic about the true state of affairs.

 

Any way, this just an opinion and all have them.

 

I see they are releasing the JFK files.

[CeeBee51]

59 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

 

The media loved Linden and by extension Benning so they have sat back and been quiet for 3 years, only now and then stating borderline hesitation of the running of the team.

 

seriously? The media has been quiet?  Are you on another planet?

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, CeeBee51 said:

seriously? The media has been quiet?  Are you on another planet?

Keep reading. Wait until you get to the part about 1040 being 'realistic' 

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, CeeBee51 said:

seriously? The media has been quiet?  Are you on another planet?

No, I’m an earth creature now. 

1040 is FAKE NEWS!!!  

[WeneedLumme]

3 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

I recall the loud cheer section on this forum that, like you suggest, defended, even celebrate, every SlimJim misadventure, regardless of how the moves looked.

 

That kind of blind following is fanaticism, not fandom.

 

No need to clamour onto everything the management has done and "get behind" it as if that's what a REAL fan does.

 

It goes both ways though. We've had some posters say nothing good about the whole thing too. Still, it must be 50-1 of blind homers to hardcore critics. Even the middle ground is largely sympathetic to management's F ups. It's getting better though. 

That's pretty funny. Do you have any idea where the word "fan" comes from? Look it up.

[TheGuardian_]

14 hours ago, CeeBee51 said:

seriously? The media has been quiet?  Are you on another planet?

By the comparison to the fall out over Schnides being traded or Torts hired, ya they have been almost silent.

[Rob_Zepp]

20 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Who said this team isn't finally going in the right direction?

 

I keep seeing people say that yet, those same people defend EVERY move made, no matter how bad it is. 

 

On the flip side I see a lot of people upset with certain moves, praise mgmt for other decisions. 

 

Again what does that have to do with being a fan. Being a fan of a team doesn't mean you aren't allowed to have an opinion of your own. 

 

 

Don't disagree on the ability to have an opinion but when your opinion is always negative, is that even healthy?     

 

I guess I don't see these "SAME people" who "defend" every move - not even sure what that exactly means anyway....defend?   This isn't war.   Having an opinion that allows a body of work to proceed with some optimism isn't "defending".    I guess I am not seeing the same posters you are - but I do see some that are "upset" at moves and a number of those seemingly are upset at every move.

 

Your glass is quite empty - perhaps just the way you look at life.

[Rob_Zepp]

19 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Too often CDC turns into a cheerleading forum instead of a hockey team forum.  

Last thing you would ever want to see is a fanbase cheering for their team.    God forbid.

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

41 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Don't disagree on the ability to have an opinion but when your opinion is always negative, is that even healthy?     

 

That's your perception though....How many people are always negative on every move?....maybe 1% of this board (a few trolls, that do it for fun).

 

It's quite often that anytime someone has a difference of opinion on what mgmt is doing, they get called out for being not "real fan", and should cheer for another team.  Too many fans have this mentality that fair criticism should not be tolerated.  You're allowed to be a canucks fan and not be in love with every decision made by the higher ups.  Being a fan doesn't mean you have let passion cloud logic.

 

Quote

I guess I don't see these "SAME people" who "defend" every move - not even sure what that exactly means anyway....defend

 

People that try to justify every decision and are willing to debate people non stop over each move.  Last year we saw a topic about why Horvat is better suited for the 4th line and WD is smart to use him there.  The debated 10+ pages with people that said it was a bad move and that Bo was better suited for the middle six.  The defenders stood there ground.  Then after the 1st game was played and WD decides he didn't like it. Now the same people that argued that "Bo being on the 4th line made sense" praised WD for moving Bo up the line up again, this happened in less than a 48hr span. 

 

Rugby is right, Too often CDC turns into a cheerleading forum instead of a hockey team forum. 

[Rob_Zepp]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

That's your perception though....How many people are always negative on every move?....maybe 1% of this board (a few trolls, that do it for fun).

 

It's quite often that anytime someone has a difference of opinion on what mgmt is doing, they get called out for being not "real fan", and should cheer for another team.  Too many fans have this mentality that fair criticism should not be tolerated.  You're allowed to be a canucks fan and not be in love with every decision made by the higher ups.  Being a fan doesn't mean you have let passion cloud logic.

 

 

People that try to justify every decision and are willing to debate people non stop over each move.  Last year we saw a topic about why Horvat is better suited for the 4th line and WD is smart to use him there.  The debated 10+ pages with people that said it was a bad move and that Bo was better suited for the middle six.  The defenders stood there ground.  Then after the 1st game was played and WD decides he didn't like it. Now the same people that argued that "Bo being on the 4th line made sense" praised WD for moving Bo up the line up again, this happened in less than a 48hr span. 

 

Rugby is right, Too often CDC turns into a cheerleading forum instead of a hockey team forum. 

I don't see these posts/threads to which you refer.  I see very few "over the top" positive posters - very few.   What I see are people who want their team to do well and have patience to get there - for the most part.   I don't see people, for example, claiming that Vey was a great move but I do see people that defend the concept of the move - totally different things and I don't think you are the rugbyguy/gal see that differentiation.   

 

Cannot comment on that last year Horvat thing as was busy during the season as I largely am this year too (off-season is when I follow/post more).   

 

I feel that I am a Canuck fan (and a couple of other teams) and I don't love every move they make - so I don't disagree with you there.   I remain concerned about the MDZ signing, and posted as such then and since, but that doesn't make me a non-fan.   Difference is I was not upset by the signing - I am willing to let an overall body of work and overall direction be my barometer and right now I see some positive signs for this franchise....more positive than negative.   

 

Some of the people you seem to post in a similar manner to rarely post anything supportive and certainly never acknowledge that a move like Granlund or Baertschi was a good one (both are two of the better trades made by ANY GM in NHL past few years) and I just wonder, why always so negative?    

 

Oh, and is it bad some of the posters like to cheer for their team?   I have no problem discussing hockey with people who are behind their team - do you?

[aGENT]

9 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I don't see people, for example, claiming that Vey was a great move but I do see people that defend the concept of the move - totally different things and I don't think you are the rugbyguy/gal see that differentiation.   

This seems to be the key issue IMO.

 

Did the Vey trade turn out to be a great move? Nope. Do I understand the motivation for making it? Yup. Do I realize that no GM is going to have every move turn out? Yup. In the grand scheme, is that a relatively 'low level' move not worth the amount of forum pages dedicated to it on CDC? Yup. Is the overall general direction of the team/youth/prospect pool headed in the right direction despite a low level hiccup here and there? Yup.

 

Not dissimilar to any number of moves. For example, I personally would have preferred we'd spent Miller's cap $ on say Niskanen (assuming he'd had any interest). Does that make Benning signing Miller 'wrong'? Nope. Miller was a damn good player for us and one of the main reasons we were remotely in games the last few years. Hard to call that wrong.

 

Does that make my wanting Niskanen wrong? Who knows? I personally think he would have helped the Sedins maintain PP scoring which plausibly would have extended their high end production, likely would have helped Edler's offensive numbers and could have even helped with injuries given teams might not have taken as many liberties if our PP had actually been any kind of real threat. But I don't have access to alternate realities to test that theory 

[aGENT]

9 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I don't see people, for example, claiming that Vey was a great move but I do see people that defend the concept of the move - totally different things and I don't think you are the rugbyguy/gal see that differentiation.   

This seems to be the key issue IMO.

 

Did the Vey trade turn out to be a great move? Nope. Do I understand the motivation for making it? Yup. Do I realize that no GM is going to have every move turn out? Yup. In the grand scheme, is that a relatively 'low level' move not worth the amount of forum pages dedicated to it on CDC? Yup. Is the overall general direction of the team/youth/prospect pool headed in the right direction despite a low level hiccup here and there? Yup.

 

Not dissimilar to any number of moves. For example, I personally would have preferred we'd spent Miller's cap $ on say Niskanen (assuming he'd had any interest). Does that make Benning signing Miller 'wrong'? Nope. Miller was a damn good player for us and one of the main reasons we were remotely in games the last few years. Hard to call that wrong.

 

Does that make my wanting Niskanen wrong? Who knows? I personally think he would have helped the Sedins maintain PP scoring which plausibly would have extended their high end production, likely would have helped Edler's offensive numbers and could have even helped with injuries given teams might not have taken as many liberties if our PP had actually been any kind of real threat. But I don't have access to alternate realities to test that theory 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I don't see these posts/threads to which you refer.  I see very few "over the top" positive posters - very few.   What I see are people who want their team to do well and have patience to get there - for the most part.   I don't see people, for example, claiming that Vey was a great move but I do see people that defend the concept of the move - totally different things and I don't think you are the rugbyguy/gal see that differentiation.   

Justification can be found in every single move.  A GM doesn't make a move without a perception that it will turn out possitive.  So it's completely pointless to discuss the concept.  Seriously what Gm makes a move with anticipation that it's not going to work out? 

 

 

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Cannot comment on that last year Horvat thing as was busy during the season as I largely am this year too (off-season is when I follow/post more).   

It's happens all the time.  Last year I argued page after page about a line combination I think would be better, but because it's something different than what WD was doing, i'm a hater.....Only for the very next game WD tries out that exact combination I was suggesting.  Yet i still am seen at the hater and WD is the genius. 

 

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I feel that I am a Canuck fan (and a couple of other teams) and I don't love every move they make - so I don't disagree with you there.   I remain concerned about the MDZ signing, and posted as such then and since, but that doesn't make me a non-fan.   Difference is I was not upset by the signing - I am willing to let an overall body of work and overall direction be my barometer and right now I see some positive signs for this franchise....more positive than negative.   

 

Why? it's a discussion board.  Why can't we discuss and provide criticism over moves that we didn't want to happen/haven't worked out?   Simply pointing out criticisms doesn't mean we are calling for anyone to be fired, it also doesn't mean we think the person is doing a completely terrible job. 

 

Too often CDC turns into a cheerleading forum instead of a hockey team forum. 

 

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Some of the people you seem to post in a similar manner to rarely post anything supportive and certainly never acknowledge that a move like Granlund or Baertschi was a good one (both are two of the better trades made by ANY GM in NHL past few years) and I just wonder, why always so negative?    

I think you need to go back and do another look at the Baertschi thread(s).

 

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Oh, and is it bad some of the posters like to cheer for their team?   I have no problem discussing hockey with people who are behind their team - do you?

If you only want to only discuss positives about the team, than maybe there should be a sub forum where people can join hands and sing praises about every move.  The problem is, too many get triggered about any sort of criticism.  I suggested that i'd preferred that Gagner should have only been offered a 2 year contract and that 3 year term was not ideal, and everyone lost there minds. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

This seems to be the key issue IMO.

 

Did the Vey trade turn out to be a great move? Nope. Do I understand the motivation for making it? Yup. Do I realize that no GM is going to have every move turn out? Yup. In the grand scheme, is that a relatively 'low level' move not worth the amount of forum pages dedicated to it on CDC? Yup. Is the overall general direction of the team/youth/prospect pool headed in the right direction despite a low level hiccup here and there? Yup.

If you want to look at everything on a macro level, then maybe you should stay out of micro level discussions....

 

 

[Rob_Zepp]

28 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

 

If you only want to only discuss positives about the team, than maybe there should be a sub forum where people can join hands and sing praises about every move.  The problem is, too many get triggered about any sort of criticism.  I suggested that i'd preferred that Gagner should have only been offered a 2 year contract and that 3 year term was not ideal, and everyone lost there minds. 

You are a very selective reader and only look for posts that support your negativity.   I was critical of that signing and remain so - but you lumped me and everyone else into "everyone" because it fits your "man on an island" narrative.    

 

Been fun chatting but you seemingly still mix up those who support an overall approach with supporting each and every move.   You have very selective reading skills.

[aGENT]

30 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

If you want to look at everything on a macro level, then maybe you should stay out of micro level discussions....

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

You are a very selective reader and only look for posts that support your negativity.   I was critical of that signing and remain so - but you lumped me and everyone else into "everyone" because it fits your "man on an island" narrative.    

 

Been fun chatting but you seemingly still mix up those who support an overall approach with supporting each and every move.   You have very selective reading skills.

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

16 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

You are a very selective reader and only look for posts that support your negativity.   I was critical of that signing and remain so - but you lumped me and everyone else into "everyone" because it fits your "man on an island" narrative.    

Um....Excuse me, when were you ever critical of that signing.

 

On 7/9/2017 at 5:03 PM, Rob_Zepp said:

I am not as keen on the MdZ move as many including this author (was this hockey news?) but I agree with both Gagner and Wiercioch given they are zero risk and potentially high reward.   

You were one of the main people I was arguing with.  

On 7/5/2017 at 10:36 PM, Rob_Zepp said:

Gagner is a place holder so younger players can develop.   What part of that don't you understand?  

In fact when I called out signing saying it was redundant, you defended and defended it finishing off with

 

On 7/6/2017 at 7:05 PM, Rob_Zepp said:

Perhaps if you got off your hate wagon you would seem some signs of life in the team you profess to follow.   Otherwise, hate on or whatever it is you do.  

Do have issues?  Perhaps memory loss? One too many pucks to the head?

 

 

 

Quote

Been fun chatting but you seemingly still mix up those who support an overall approach with supporting each and every move.   You have very selective reading skills.

As I said to JR If you want to look at everything on a macro level, then maybe you should stay out of micro level discussions...

[CeeBee51]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

 Last year I argued page after page about a line combination I think would be better,

How to make friends in 50 words or less

[CanadianRugby]

9 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

What I see are people who want their team to do well and have patience to get there - for the most part.   I don't see people, for example, claiming that Vey was a great move but I do see people that defend the concept of the move - totally different things and I don't think you are the rugbyguy/gal see that differentiation.   

Funny, the people that say they have patience.  Two years ago were saying that "there's more than one way to skin a cat" when it comes to rebuilding, and that trading draft picks for NHL ready players like Vey & Baertschi would be FASTER than drafting players like Toronto was doing.  That's patience?  OK.  Also being a bottom feeder would ruin prospects like it did for Edmonton and you would suck for the next 10 years.

 

Then when Toronto had success, the same people started arguing that of course Toronto is having success they had a head start compared to Vancouver.  Now them tanking wouldn't ruin them for 10 years.  Also, now being a bottom feeder magically no longer ruins prospects because hey, who cares about admitting you're wrong when you can just flip your point of view and ignore what you argued to death the last season.  

 

When you say that if Vancouver makes the playoffs this year, great because Benning is ahead of schedule.  If Vancouver had the worst season in team history, great because we get another sick prospect.  It's frustrating to argue with people like this because literally no matter what happens, in your opinion it's great.  Awful FA signings, blown draft picks, it's all defended.  Everything has an excuse.  You're straight up defending Benning giving our divisional rivals a 2nd round pick for a guy we couldn't give away on waivers, then have the audacity to say there are so few people that blindly defend Benning... as you're blindly defending Benning.  

 

Yes.  I understand the concept of trading for Vey.  It's the concept I hate, not the actual trade.  Some of Benning's trades have worked out, that one didn't.  It's not the value of the trade that I hated but the concept of trading away draft picks when you're a terrible team.  It's the opposite of rebuilding.  It's doing the opposite of what successful rebuilds like Leafs, Blackhawks and the Penguins did.

 

Just because I fundamentally disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand the concept of hockey moves.  

[Rob_Zepp]

11 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Funny, the people that say they have patience.  Two years ago were saying that "there's more than one way to skin a cat" when it comes to rebuilding, and that trading draft picks for NHL ready players like Vey & Baertschi would be FASTER than drafting players like Toronto was doing.  That's patience?  OK.  Also being a bottom feeder would ruin prospects like it did for Edmonton and you would suck for the next 10 years.

 

Then when Toronto had success, the same people started arguing that of course Toronto is having success they had a head start compared to Vancouver.  Now them tanking wouldn't ruin them for 10 years.  Also, now being a bottom feeder magically no longer ruins prospects because hey, who cares about admitting you're wrong when you can just flip your point of view and ignore what you argued to death the last season.  

 

When you say that if Vancouver makes the playoffs this year, great because Benning is ahead of schedule.  If Vancouver had the worst season in team history, great because we get another sick prospect.  It's frustrating to argue with people like this because literally no matter what happens, in your opinion it's great.  Awful FA signings, blown draft picks, it's all defended.  Everything has an excuse.  You're straight up defending Benning giving our divisional rivals a 2nd round pick for a guy we couldn't give away on waivers, then have the audacity to say there are so few people that blindly defend Benning... as you're blindly defending Benning.  

 

Yes.  I understand the concept of trading for Vey.  It's the concept I hate, not the actual trade.  Some of Benning's trades have worked out, that one didn't.  It's not the value of the trade that I hated but the concept of trading away draft picks when you're a terrible team.  It's the opposite of rebuilding.  It's doing the opposite of what successful rebuilds like Leafs, Blackhawks and the Penguins did.

 

Just because I fundamentally disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand the concept of hockey moves.