Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Canucks displaying a model rebuild plan


Sergei Shirokov

Recommended Posts

On 11/8/2018 at 1:19 AM, Baggins said:

Kesler wanted out because the team was going to rebuild. Garrison was also moved and Booth bought out. Three vets out first year. But moving Bieksa and lack the following year marked the start of the rebuild to you?

 

You seem to be ignoring the part: in order to rebuild you need something to rebuild with. They got lucky that season making the playoffs. As they moved more and more veterans out it would get tougher and key injuries would play a big role. But year 1 two rookies made the roster and four other rookies would get shots. Year 2 three more rookies made the opening roster and seven others would get a look.

 

Honest question: What did you think they meant by "transition to a younger team"?

 

Again, just because you didn't get the rebuild you wanted (tanking) doesn't mean they weren't rebuilding. Trading for already developed prospects was part of rebuilding as we really had none in Utica NHL worthy. Their actions have been consistent since taking over. Move some vets out, sign some ufa's, and trade for young partially developed prospects that could possibly step right in. Every year same actions. You simply choose to ignore those actions because they weren't the tank job you wanted.

I think that after 2012, people in the organization knew that they had to plan for the future.  Transition, what you will.

 

I also think that ownership has always wanted to be a perennial contender much like Detroit and San Jose have been

 

Gillis knew that he had to revamp scouting and drafting.  He also knew that he had to have more control over player development.  Bring on the Comets.  There were a whole series of events that led to the Gillis firing.  Some have said it was a fundamental disagreement between him and ownership.  Ownership couldn't accept that a rebuild was necessary but it was obvious to many.  There was a shocking lack of prospects in the system and the core was getting older.  I think that trying to move Luongo was step 1 and there were problems with that which were Gillis' doing.  Without launching into an essay, we all know what happened.  Gillis' last important move I think was to move Schneider and draft Horvat.  That was the beginning of looking to the future.  Hiring Tortorella was a win now move that clearly went wrong and I would say represents this conflict in approach.  Maybe it really was ownership's call.

 

Linden said very early that they were going to give the Sedins another playoff run.  Kesler knew however, that a rebuild was going to have to happen and he wanted out.  Fair enough, but this had to be reconciled with ownership's goals and I think that what went on in 2014-15 and 2015-16 were part of this.  Fans and media were confused because Benning was on the one hand trying to please the owner by adding players like Eriksson to play with the Sedins for example and on the other hand, prepare for the inevitable rebuild by A. adding prospects to compensate for the poor drafting and B. drafting and developing.  You could argue that having a good top line would help to shelter developing players and I think this is true but I think that early on in Bennings tenure, it was about making the playoffs.   At some time since Bennings first year, there was a shift in focus from supporting the Sedin core to supporting a younger core.

 

The thing is, I don't blame ownership for being frustrated that their team had such a quick decline.  Ownership still wants to be a perennial contender but has accepted that there needed to be a few years of pain to get there.  If the prospect pipeline is maintained, then a team can be a playoff team long term.  Stable management and the understanding of ownership is necessary for this.  Doug Wilson has been the Sharks GM since 2003 and Ken Holland has been GM of the Red Wings since 1997. 

 

I think it takes time for any rebuild to take shape.  Now that the plan is clear, Benning is getting praise where just a year or 2 ago, he was being called a fool.  We are starting to see drafted players become effective NHL players.  Virtanen is finally seeing some success and I think that his development curve is what we should be expecting for most drafted players.  Boeser and Pettersson are exceptions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh when you look at how the Oilers have done it everyone got worried that rebuilds could take 20 plus years. Good drafting and a nice city also help. We have a foundation that's going to grow and players just learning the pro game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

 

I think it takes time for any rebuild to take shape.  Now that the plan is clear, Benning is getting praise where just a year or 2 ago, he was being called a fool.  We are starting to see drafted players become effective NHL players.  Virtanen is finally seeing some success and I think that his development curve is what we should be expecting for most drafted players.  Boeser and Pettersson are exceptions.

 

 

I don't know that many people were calling him a fool (other than the usual Dim Jim trolls) but less than a year ago it wasn't a slam dunk that his contract would be extended. Imagine that! Since then, not only has EP been a home run but Jake Virtanen looks to have finally arrived. For Benning, this is almost as big as drafting EP, as Virtanen has largely been looked at as Benning's biggest mistake. That and OJ and he's been looking promising down in Utica. Sure, JB would probably like a do over with that pick but if OJ ends up being a top 4 dman for us, people will quickly forget about where he was drafted.

 

Oh and also worth a mention - another 1st round pick of Benning's in Jarod McCann, was traded away for the ever disappointing Erik Gudbranson...fast forward two years and all of a sudden EG isn't so disappointing!

 

Not bad Jim, not bad at all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I'll take Sergei Shirokov's positivity over Fedor Federov.....every time.

Ya but what about Fedor's fashion sense? I still remember him arriving to an arena in this ridiculous/massive fur coat. Likely paid for by big bro :lol:

 

I tried to google it but I couldn't find it. The memory however has burnt a hole in my brain!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cory40 said:

Yeh when you look at how the Oilers have done it everyone got worried that rebuilds could take 20 plus years. Good drafting and a nice city also help. We have a foundation that's going to grow and players just learning the pro game!

Good drafting is the key. We all talk about how nice a city Vancouver is but the reality is that we've had to overpay in both dollars and term to convince players to sign here. I think those days are over now though.

 

How many players have we had in our franchise's history that actually make players want to sign here? Bure...the Sedins...EP?

 

Thank god we dodged that Lucic bullet but McDavid was the difference maker. When you have elite players on your roster, UFAs will want to sign with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Linden said very early that they were going to give the Sedins another playoff run.  Kesler knew however, that a rebuild was going to have to happen and he wanted out.  Fair enough, but this had to be reconciled with ownership's goals and I think that what went on in 2014-15 and 2015-16 were part of this.  Fans and media were confused because Benning was on the one hand trying to please the owner by adding players like Eriksson to play with the Sedins for example and on the other hand, prepare for the inevitable rebuild by A. adding prospects to compensate for the poor drafting and B. drafting and developing.  You could argue that having a good top line would help to shelter developing players and I think this is true but I think that early on in Bennings tenure, it was about making the playoffs.   At some time since Bennings first year, there was a shift in focus from supporting the Sedin core to supporting a younger core.

Nonsense. What Linden said was they were going to transition to a younger team (rebuilding) while trying to compete for a playoff spot. You make the playoffs and anything can happen is what he said. A far cry from saying 'go for another playoff run'. Even the Sedins said from the beginning they were fine with playing through a rebuild. As the transition to youth continued that goal of making the playoffs would become more difficult. Particulalrly with no prospects in Utica to draw from for injuries. What Linden later said was it would have been unfair to the Sedins to gut the team (intentionally tank). There was never any mention of going for another playoff run. Only trying to make the playoffs while rebuilding. Hense signing ufa's like Miller and Eriksson. Those were simply 'try to compete' moves while rebuilding at the same time. The goal they stated from day one. Their first year they had nothing to rebuild with. Hense the moves for NHL ready prospects the first few years. They wouldn't have made moves for guys like Etem, Vey, Baertschi, or Granlund (unproven quantities) if they were shooting for a big playoff run. Those were rebuilding moves. Rebuilding moves they had to make because there was no prospect pool.

 

Kesler said himself that Gillis told him they were going to start rebuilding after that season and asked to be traded long before Linden/Benning were hired. He said he wanted to compete for the cup not go through a rebuild. Had Linden and Benning said "we're not rebuilding we're shooting for a cup run" would Kesler have still wanted out?

 

I don't believe Gillis was fired because he wanted to rebuild. I think he was fired because Acquillini didn't trust him to do it. An awful draft record, only one player on the roster under 27, an empty prospect pool, bumbling Lou wanting out, followed by bumbling Kesler wanting out. So he brought in a face the fans could get behind (Linden) and a GM with a track record of finding young talent (Benning) to rebuild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Baggins said:

Nonsense. What Linden said was they were going to transition to a younger team (rebuilding) while trying to compete for a playoff spot. You make the playoffs and anything can happen is what he said. A far cry from saying 'go for another playoff run'. Even the Sedins said from the beginning they were fine with playing through a rebuild. As the transition to youth continued that goal of making the playoffs would become more difficult. Particulalrly with no prospects in Utica to draw from for injuries. What Linden later said was it would have been unfair to the Sedins to gut the team (intentionally tank). There was never any mention of going for another playoff run. Only trying to make the playoffs while rebuilding. Hense signing ufa's like Miller and Eriksson. Those were simply 'try to compete' moves while rebuilding at the same time. The goal they stated from day one. Their first year they had nothing to rebuild with. Hense the moves for NHL ready prospects the first few years. They wouldn't have made moves for guys like Etem, Vey, Baertschi, or Granlund (unproven quantities) if they were shooting for a big playoff run. Those were rebuilding moves. Rebuilding moves they had to make because there was no prospect pool.

 

Kesler said himself that Gillis told him they were going to start rebuilding after that season and asked to be traded long before Linden/Benning were hired. He said he wanted to compete for the cup not go through a rebuild. Had Linden and Benning said "we're not rebuilding we're shooting for a cup run" would Kesler have still wanted out?

 

I don't believe Gillis was fired because he wanted to rebuild. I think he was fired because Acquillini didn't trust him to do it. An awful draft record, only one player on the roster under 27, an empty prospect pool, bumbling Lou wanting out, followed by bumbling Kesler wanting out. So he brought in a face the fans could get behind (Linden) and a GM with a track record of finding young talent (Benning) to rebuild.

You say here that they were "trying to compete for a playoff spot.  You make the playoffs and anything can happen..."  How is that substantially different from taking a playoff run?  This sounds to me like they wanted to make the playoffs.  It is spin because we all know that in 2014 the Canucks weren't what they were.  I don't know how you can spin this in a way that sets a transition as the first priority.  It just wasn't.

 

Kesler read the tea leaves.  Maybe Gillis put the idea in his head but on examination of the team he must have seen that there was pain coming.  Then super scout Jim Benning was hired as GM.  We all thought that a rebuild was coming.  It was a surprise to hear that winning and the playoffs were a goal at all.  Talk of playoffs was just talk in Kesler's eyes, he wanted out.

 

All I'm saying is that ownership was slow to accept that their team had fallen off the table and needed a rebuild by 2013 when Gillis traded Schneider for Horvat's draft pick.  In fact, it was much later before ownership would accept an actual rebuild.  In 2014 Linden and Benning said they thought they could turn the team around in a hurry.  That's a re-tool.  That means they are still supporting the old core.  They still had the old reliable top 4 D (Edler, Tanev, Hamhuis, Bieksa), a pair of Sedins, Burrows, Hansen and they added a top goalie (Miller) and a scoring winger (Vrbata).  That's not a rebuild lineup.

 

Once this lineup was exposed in the playoffs by the Flames, Benning tried to improve the speed on the back end by moving the slow Bieksa and adding Bartkowski.  He also upgraded Bonino with Sutter.

 

Summer 2016 saw the addition of Loui Eriksson.  Fans all thought that Loui would score 40.  How is this not supporting the old core?  

 

Until mid season 2016-17 Linden was forbidden to say the word rebuild.  Then, Burrows and Hansen were traded and Linden was talking rebuild. Ownership was officially on board with the rebuild and now all they did was aimed at supporting the young group coming up which was being led by Bo Horvat.  The Sedins would take the match ups.  Sutter would take the D-zone starts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

You say here that they were "trying to compete for a playoff spot.  You make the playoffs and anything can happen..."  How is that substantially different from taking a playoff run?  This sounds to me like they wanted to make the playoffs.  It is spin because we all know that in 2014 the Canucks weren't what they were.  I don't know how you can spin this in a way that sets a transition as the first priority.  It just wasn't.

 

Kesler read the tea leaves.  Maybe Gillis put the idea in his head but on examination of the team he must have seen that there was pain coming.  Then super scout Jim Benning was hired as GM.  We all thought that a rebuild was coming.  It was a surprise to hear that winning and the playoffs were a goal at all.  Talk of playoffs was just talk in Kesler's eyes, he wanted out.

 

All I'm saying is that ownership was slow to accept that their team had fallen off the table and needed a rebuild by 2013 when Gillis traded Schneider for Horvat's draft pick.  In fact, it was much later before ownership would accept an actual rebuild.  In 2014 Linden and Benning said they thought they could turn the team around in a hurry.  That's a re-tool.  That means they are still supporting the old core.  They still had the old reliable top 4 D (Edler, Tanev, Hamhuis, Bieksa), a pair of Sedins, Burrows, Hansen and they added a top goalie (Miller) and a scoring winger (Vrbata).  That's not a rebuild lineup.

 

Once this lineup was exposed in the playoffs by the Flames, Benning tried to improve the speed on the back end by moving the slow Bieksa and adding Bartkowski.  He also upgraded Bonino with Sutter.

 

Summer 2016 saw the addition of Loui Eriksson.  Fans all thought that Loui would score 40.  How is this not supporting the old core?  

 

Until mid season 2016-17 Linden was forbidden to say the word rebuild.  Then, Burrows and Hansen were traded and Linden was talking rebuild. Ownership was officially on board with the rebuild and now all they did was aimed at supporting the young group coming up which was being led by Bo Horvat.  The Sedins would take the match ups.  Sutter would take the D-zone starts.

 

Rubbish. They had nothing to rebuild with at the start. What were they suppose to do? They said from day one "transition to a younger team" what did you think that meant - cup run? Did adding Vey, Etem, and Clendenning scream cup run to you? How about Baertschi and Granlund? Cup run? Even adding those young guys they needed ufa's to fill out the roster.

 

Where did you read Linden was forbidden to say the word? I don't blame him for avoiding the 'R' word for so long. Far too many associate the word with tanking. Which would have sent season ticket holders running for the hills. Fans here aren't supportive of a loser, never mind a team set up to finish last from day 1 of the season. So all along it was 'transition to a younger team' and try to remain competitive while building up a pool. Getting younger guys on the roster was the start of the rebuild that first year, even if they were prospects they acquired through trade. With nothing NHL worthy on the farm team and 10 ntc's to deal with they had to start somewhere and couldn't do a clearance sale. Not and still sell tickets here.

 

Name a team where a GM took over facing no prospect pool, one roster player under 27, everybody else on the decline, and 10 ntc's to deal. How do you replace an entire team and stock your farm team quickly?

 

There's a lot of questions there for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Baggins said:

Rubbish. They had nothing to rebuild with at the start. What were they suppose to do? They said from day one "transition to a younger team" what did you think that meant - cup run? Did adding Vey, Etem, and Clendenning scream cup run to you? How about Baertschi and Granlund? Cup run? Even adding those young guys they needed ufa's to fill out the roster.

 

Where did you read Linden was forbidden to say the word? I don't blame him for avoiding the 'R' word for so long. Far too many associate the word with tanking. Which would have sent season ticket holders running for the hills. Fans here aren't supportive of a loser, never mind a team set up to finish last from day 1 of the season. So all along it was 'transition to a younger team' and try to remain competitive while building up a pool. Getting younger guys on the roster was the start of the rebuild that first year, even if they were prospects they acquired through trade. With nothing NHL worthy on the farm team and 10 ntc's to deal with they had to start somewhere and couldn't do a clearance sale. Not and still sell tickets here.

 

Name a team where a GM took over facing no prospect pool, one roster player under 27, everybody else on the decline, and 10 ntc's to deal. How do you replace an entire team and stock your farm team quickly?

 

There's a lot of questions there for you.

Ya.....you're struggling.  Rubbish, yes, what you say is.  I think your memory is very selective. 

 

They had plenty to rebuild with at the start, they just chose not to.  Let's run down the list of players with value who were on the roster in 2014 and were not on the roster by the trade deadline 2017:  Kesler, Garrison, Bieksa, Richardson, Hamhuis, Burrows, Hansen, Higgins.  I think that NTC's are less of a roadblock than many think.  When asked, most players will agree to a list of teams as we saw with Garrison, Bieksa, and Burrows.  These players had value in 2014 but the team wanted to remain competitive in some way; to make the playoffs.  As I said, they also added to the top end of the line up with Miller and Vrbata.  

 

Remember the "serving 2 masters" quote from Ferraro?  That's trying to win AND trying to add players from the bottom too.  The younger players Benning tried to bring in were an effort to make up for a lack of players in their prime (which was due to many years of bad drafting). These guys were cheap to acquire because the Canucks had no assets that they were prepared to give up (there's a difference).  They were worthy of picking up because although they had had no NHL success to date, it was expected that they were on the verge of breaking through.  Vey was one such player who put up very good numbers in the AHL and it was thought that he was held out of the NHL because he was on a deep LA team.  Benning hit on a few:  Baertschi and Granlund but missed more often.  I have no problem with him doing this because he hit at a rate that was similar (maybe better) than picking in the 2nd round.  

 

Maybe, just maybe, Linden couldn't lie and call it a rebuild until the spring of 2017 because it wasn't one.   After they moved Burrows and Hansen, Linden used the word rebuild.

 

Twice a year, the Canuck ownership and management review the teams progress and performance.  When reviews are made, adjustments are made to the plan and how it is executed.  This is normal for every organization.  I think that it would be expected that changes were made.  Like trying to win when ownership expected the team to win, then switching to a rebuild when your star players are obviously in decline and it was clear that winning was in the past as it was in early 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Ya.....you're struggling.  Rubbish, yes, what you say is.  I think your memory is very selective. 

 

They had plenty to rebuild with at the start, they just chose not to.  Let's run down the list of players with value who were on the roster in 2014 and were not on the roster by the trade deadline 2017:  Kesler, Garrison, Bieksa, Richardson, Hamhuis, Burrows, Hansen, Higgins.  I think that NTC's are less of a roadblock than many think.  When asked, most players will agree to a list of teams as we saw with Garrison, Bieksa, and Burrows.  These players had value in 2014 but the team wanted to remain competitive in some way; to make the playoffs.  As I said, they also added to the top end of the line up with Miller and Vrbata. 

And if they were all moved at once who would we have replaced them with?

 

15 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Remember the "serving 2 masters" quote from Ferraro?  That's trying to win AND trying to add players from the bottom too.  The younger players Benning tried to bring in were an effort to make up for a lack of players in their prime (which was due to many years of bad drafting). These guys were cheap to acquire because the Canucks had no assets that they were prepared to give up (there's a difference).  They were worthy of picking up because although they had had no NHL success to date, it was expected that they were on the verge of breaking through.  Vey was one such player who put up very good numbers in the AHL and it was thought that he was held out of the NHL because he was on a deep LA team.  Benning hit on a few:  Baertschi and Granlund but missed more often.  I have no problem with him doing this because he hit at a rate that was similar (maybe better) than picking in the 2nd round. 

So are you saying you see those moves as "play of run" moves? He wasn't trying to make up for a lack of players in their prime. He was trying to make up for a complete lack of NHL ready prospects. Which is what he traded for - prospects.

 

15 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Maybe, just maybe, Linden couldn't lie and call it a rebuild until the spring of 2017 because it wasn't one.   After they moved Burrows and Hansen, Linden used the word rebuild.

And yet they did exactly the same thing year after year before and after the 'R' word was used. Signing UFA's, trading for NHL ready prospects, and attempting to move pending ufa's at the deadline when out of the playoffs. In fact this is the first year they didn't try to acquire an NHL ready prospect. Could be because there's enough young guys arriving in Utica now. Same thing each and every year. But it finally became a rebuild because he said the 'R' word. Come on.

 

Seriously, answer this question: What did you believe they meant by "transition to a younger team"? They were saying it from the time they took over. It's really the only thing you need to answer from this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018-11-17 at 9:04 PM, Crabcakes said:

You say here that they were "trying to compete for a playoff spot.

 

I don't know how you can spin this in a way that sets a transition as the first priority. 

*Not mutually exclusive.

 

They've said from day one that their main priority is transitioning to a younger roster. That's how.

 

Doesn't mean you can't also fill out an NHL roster and attempt to support the vets (a couple HOF'ers in particular) still here, in the process. 

 

It doesn't fall under the 'tank = rebuild' mantra but it can and certainly is a rebuild. All the evidence you need is right in front of your eyes with the current (healthy anyway) roster and prospect pool.

 

It may not have been the type rebuild some wanted but to deny it's a rebuild at this stage is beyond a state of denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aGENT said:

*Not mutually exclusive.

 

They've said from day one that their main priority is transitioning to a younger roster. That's how.

 

Doesn't mean you can't also fill out an NHL roster and attempt to support the vets (a couple HOF'ers in particular) still here, in the process. 

 

It doesn't fall under the 'tank = rebuild' mantra but it can and certainly is a rebuild. All the evidence you need is right in front of your eyes with the current (healthy anyway) roster and prospect pool.

 

It may not have been the type rebuild some wanted but to deny it's a rebuild at this stage is beyond a state of denial.

I agree we are clearly rebuilding.  However, I don't believe we were rebuilding until after the trades of Burrows and Hansen.  The signing of Loui was obviously not a rebuilding move.  The team did really well in Willie's first year.  They were not rebuilding then, or turning over the roster to younger players.  However, we have a great core of young guys, who are here now, or soon to be here.  We have a great future.  No matter how JB did it, I'm glad he was the guy leading the change.  He's done a masterful job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

I agree we are clearly rebuilding.  However, I don't believe we were rebuilding until after the trades of Burrows and Hansen.  The signing of Loui was obviously not a rebuilding move.  The team did really well in Willie's first year.  They were not rebuilding then, or turning over the roster to younger players.  However, we have a great core of young guys, who are here now, or soon to be here.  We have a great future.  No matter how JB did it, I'm glad he was the guy leading the change.  He's done a masterful job. 

Six rookies played 14/15. Two here for the whole season.

Ten rookies played 15/16. Three here for the whole season.

Thirteen rookies played 16/17. Three here for the whole season.

Five Rookies played 17/18. One here for the whole season.

 

Seems to me there was a lot of rookie action prior to Burrows and Hansen being traded. Benning tried to move Vrbata and Hamhuis at the deadline the year before, unfortunately their ntc's got in the way. The number of rookies on the team, and getting a look, dropped after Burrows and Hansen were moved but that's when the rebuild started? Come on Alf.

 

How did you expect Benning to turn the team over to younger players when he started with nothing to turn it over to? Should he have turned the team over to Shinkaruk, Jensen, and Corrado? Five years later our top three prospects on the farm aren't in the NHL. Jensen is playing in Europe, Shinkaruk signed a one year two way deal with Montreal but is playing in Laval, and Corrado has an AHL only contract. Yet six rookies still managed to get a look that first year with two on the roster the whole season. The rebuild started the first year Alf. He just didn't start with much to rebuild with when he took over. That's why he traded for NHL ready prospects. Buying out Booth, trading Garrison and Kesler, and acquiring already developed prospects was the start of the rebuild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Six rookies played 14/15. Two here for the whole season.

Ten rookies played 15/16. Three here for the whole season.

Thirteen rookies played 16/17. Three here for the whole season.

Five Rookies played 17/18. One here for the whole season.

 

Seems to me there was a lot of rookie action prior to Burrows and Hansen being traded. Benning tried to move Vrbata and Hamhuis at the deadline the year before, unfortunately their ntc's got in the way. The number of rookies on the team, and getting a look, dropped after Burrows and Hansen were moved but that's when the rebuild started? Come on Alf.

 

How did you expect Benning to turn the team over to younger players when he started with nothing to turn it over to? Should he have turned the team over to Shinkaruk, Jensen, and Corrado? Five years later our top three prospects on the farm aren't in the NHL. Jensen is playing in Europe, Shinkaruk signed a one year two way deal with Montreal but is playing in Laval, and Corrado has an AHL only contract. Yet six rookies still managed to get a look that first year with two on the roster the whole season. The rebuild started the first year Alf. He just didn't start with much to rebuild with when he took over. That's why he traded for NHL ready prospects. Buying out Booth, trading Garrison and Kesler, and acquiring already developed prospects was the start of the rebuild.

The signing of Loui, and the lack of management to use the word "rebuild" indicate they were turning over their roster, but retooling, and not rebuilding.  Then, there was a change in plans the the TDL, when Burr and Honey Badger were traded.  To myself, that appears the key point in becoming a rebuild.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

The signing of Loui, and the lack of management to use the word "rebuild" indicate they were turning over their roster, but retooling, and not rebuilding.  Then, there was a change in plans the the TDL, when Burr and Honey Badger were traded.  To myself, that appears the key point in becoming a rebuild.  

 

Semantics 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...