Sergei Shirokov

Canucks displaying a model rebuild plan

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Baggins said:

 

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.

In 2014, transition to a younger team mean't when older players aged out, they would try to replace them with younger players.

examples:

  • Bieksa with Bartkowski and later Gudbranson
  • Hamhuis with Pouliot or Sbisa 

As I said, when Benning took over and was forced to move Kesler, he immediately made moves to solidify the older core.  He had a bona fide top 6:  Sedin, Sedin, Vrbata.  Higgins, Bonino, Burrows/Hansen.  And a top 4: Edler, Tanev, Hamhuis, Bieksa. And a goalie:  Miller.  As I said, until the TDL 2017, Benning always sought to preserve this core and to support it with players like Sutter as Horvat improved.  He obviously wasn't always successful.

 

Prospects and draft picks at this point had to be secondary because development was necessary and Benning and Dejardins didn't make assumptions about the readiness of young players.  A full complement of secondary players was maintained.  There's a long list but journeymen like Richardson was kept in the beginning.

 

The difference at the trade deadline 2017 was that they traded core players Burrows and Hansen who had not aged out.  They had trade value.  Coincidentally, Linden finally said the word rebuild where before, he refused.  It wasn't a rebuild because he said the word.  It was because they were making rebuilding moves.

 

Beginning the 2017-18 season, there was a new coach and we see veterans playing support roles to younger players.  A top 6 featuring Baertschi, Horvat, Vanek as the top line at first, and a 2nd with the Sedins.  The Sutter line with Granlund and Eriksson were to take the hard match ups.  Gagner was signed and the intention was to centre a pair of young prospects (Boeser, Virtanen, Goldobin etc).  On defense we see Edler and Tanev taking the top match ups and DelZotto and Gudbranson sheltering young D like Pouliot, Hutton and Stecher.  In goal at this point, Benning was taking a calculated risk with Markstrom and newly signed Nilsson.  My point being that players brought in, were now there to lend support to younger players (the free agents were Vanek, Gagner, Del Zotto and Nilsson).  We now see room for young players to move up the line up like we saw with Boeser replacing Vanek  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 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.  

 

Answer these questions:

 

1 - Do you 'retool' with unproven rookies or is that a rebuilding move?

 

2 - You didn't answer my question: What "younger players" were they suppose to turn the team over to year 1?

 

3 - What about the year before when they tried to move Hamhuis and Vrbata at the deadline? Not rebuilding because they blocked being moved with their ntc's?

 

4 - How do explain the number of rookies prior to moving Burrows/Hansen compared to since?

 

5 - You needed them to say rebuild? Do you need to be told the sun is shining? Don't answer those two questions, answer this one: What did you think they meant when they said transition to a younger team and bought out Booth, traded Kesler and Garrison, and didn't re-sign Santorelli, Dalpe, Schroeder, and Alberts. That's seven roster players traded or released in the first off-season.

 

That bold question is the one I really want answered. It was obvious to most us us they were rebuilding from day 1 but were not going to intentionally tank the team to do it, thus signing guys like Miller, Vrbata and Eriksson etc. What's funny about that first year is the tank crew were mad about signing ufa's, yet mad about trading for developed prospects. Picks, picks, picks. Who were they supposed to put on the team with no prospect pool to draw from?

 

After trading Burrows and Hansen they signed ufa's Gagner (3 years), Burmistrov (1 year) and Del Zotto (2 years). Linden was lying when he finally said rebuild. He was still retooling as they signed 3 ufa's and there were fewer rookies on the team the following year than the previous three. We're still not rebuilding as this past summer three more ufa's were signed and again only one rookie made the roster out of camp. Obviously Linden was fired for saying rebuild when we're actually still retooling. How's that for head in the sand thinking?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 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.  

 

Yep your right alf.  Adding a few rookies to your roster doesn’t define a team being in rebuild mode.  In fact it’s laughable that anyone would suggest that. 

 

For example in 2016-17,

While Canucks had 13 rookies lace up for games that season, only 3 of them played more than 15 games.  Does using a 26 year old Rodin playing in 3 games, or 25 year old Grenier playing 3 games or 24 year old’s Redeulic and Zalewski each playing 1 game, define that Canucks were rebuilding?  

 

If playing rookies in games is the criteria for rebuilding, I guess we can say the Hawks were also in rebuilding mode that year as they had 8 rookies play games, they also have 6 of them play over 30 games (5 of them over half the year).  I guess the Ducks were also rebuilding that year as they had 11 rookies play games, heck even the Bruins had 10 rookies.   

 

90 % teams have the focus of getting younger and faster, that’s not a rebuilding strategy, that a cap world reality.  Most here know that but purposely choose to move the goalpost rather than admitting that the first strategy of a quick retolol failed..  

 

For example….

“Yup, the success/failure of this current “retool on the fly” hinges directly on what they do with the D and how well that works out in the next 2 years IMO.  If it works out (smiley), if not….there’s going to be a tough few years” – JR in 2015

 

@aGENT, you did call it and you were right, the “retool on the fly” didn’t work out and we are now in the midst of those tough few years.  Just funny to hear you today pretending that everything has been going exactly as the rebuild was planned, from day 1.   

 

Anyways when JB started it was quickly “retooling on the fly” (changing the core while remaining a playoff orientated team), unfortunately for those team goals, the Sedins production dropped rapidly and we hit a ton of injuries which forced us to speed up that process.  It didn’t allow us to slowly transition the core over while remaining competitive.  All the moves made early on, were yes to get younger, but also with the focus on being able to jump in right away and support the current core. The failure in us being able to remain competitive resulted in us obtaining a number of high draft picks.  It also caused us to fire a coach (a clear sign that plans and goals weren’t being met). 

 

Agent again you are correct, Winning and rebuilding aren’t mutually exclusive, a rebuilding team can end up winning but that’s more of playing with house money than the team initial outset. There needs to be a line drawn from what the teams overall focus is.  Focusing on winning hinders player development (a key part of rebuilding), while focusing on player development reduces you chances at winning.  Trying to walk the line of both and serving two masters doesn’t work either. 

 

“The stage our team is in … it’s a touchy subject. Whenever you get into that discussion between development and winning, those are such polarizing subjects for everybody. I think the key to winning is having a vision and having a straight line. Knowing exactly where you want to go, it’s much easier to get there for everybody. It’s when (the line) goes back and forth, that’s where you can lose your way a little bit.  Last year, there were times people wondered: Why is this line starting in the offensive zone?” Desjardins said. “Maybe some guys are going: ‘This guy hasn’t won a draw and you’re putting him out there again?’ But you have to develop. We had to go through that year where we made development (a priority)  This year, it’s a different story. Our road is way straighter, way straighter. Our vision now is in a line and all the players, all of us, are accountable to that vision. As much as people thought last year was a wasted year, there were a lot of good things that came out of that. Now we have put those good things in place this year.” – WD

 

That’s a crystal clear quote that canucks vision/goal was on winning and less about developing in 2016-17.  Unfortunately for WD, Canucks once again were at the bottom of the standings, WD was on the hot seat and we started to see some of our winning pieces moved out for picks and prospects.  WD ended up getting fired because the team didn’t meet those winning goals. 

 

We could all see (most of us) the strategy began to change.  Canucks became less focused on the results in the win column and more focused on player development.  Heading into the 2017-18 season playoffs weren’t even mentioned in the press conferences, the main goal was to continue to develop our young players and add to our pool.  We finally started to accept the fact that the short retooling on the fly wasn’t working and that this now “rebuild” was going to take some time.  So yes, the Canucks didn’t fully embrace the rebuild until the last few years.  I don’t know why people are so defensive to admit this, strategies change all the time, just listen to the Gillis interview.  It doesn’t even have a negative connotation on JB as the owners are the ones that determine the strategy.  If people still want to close their eyes and cover their ears, by all means there free to do as they choose, personally I’m done with it, it’s been debated for far too long and some people seem content being hopelessly lost.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

strategies change all the time,.    

Strategies didn't change. Wins/losses did.

 

Attempt to retool/rebuild on the fly with vets in place has been the plan since day one. There was always risk on how well/quickly it could happen (hence the possibility of 'a tough few years').  Main focus has always been youth/future while attempting to support the existing team.

 

Still the same this year.

 

Still the same when we traded Burr/Hansen. 

 

I don't particularly care which r-word you use. Semantics :bored:

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Strategies didn't change. Wins/losses did.

 

Attempt to retool/rebuild on the fly with vets in place has been the plan since day one. There was always risk on how well/quickly it could happen (hence the possibility of 'a tough few years').  Main focus has always been youth/future while attempting to support the existing team.

 

Still the same this year.

 

Still the same when we traded Burr/Hansen. 

 

I don't particularly care which r-word you use. Semantics :bored:

 

 

The focus of the team has clearly changed as WD had pointed out in his quote.  You can choose to move the goalpost on what you define rebuild but that doesn’t make you right. The strategy clearly changed and we have a fired coach and a president that stepped down to prove that. 

 

Like i said getting younger and faster doesn’t define a team being in a rebuild. that's a very broad outlook on the term and I know you’re smart enough to understand that. The majority of teams are doing the exact same thing, that not a rebuild strategy. That’s just a necessity in the cap world.  That hawks have transitions just as much of there core in the last 4 years as Canucks.  They have 8 players on there current roster that are under 25. Canucks have 9. Do the hawks today have the same strategy as Canucks today?  

 

Retool and rebuilds are different strategies. Sure both involve a somewhat transitioning of players but the way they are approached and carried out are very different.  Again I know you are smart enough to understand that. You clearly understood that when you pointed it out 3 years ago. 

 

The problem is you and a few others mistake the idea that changing of strategies as a knock on JB’s ability or a knock on this team and feel the need to be the defenders. When in reality it’s not a critic on JB or the team at all. Just people pointing out the obvious. It’s funny that the entire hockey world agrees that Canucks have adjusted there strategy over the last 4 years. but there are a select few think there’s some different reality and that only they are smart enough to understand. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

The focus of the team has clearly changed as WD had pointed out in his quote.  You can choose to move the goalpost on what you define rebuild but that doesn’t make you right. The strategy clearly changed and we have a fired coach and a president that stepped down to prove that. 

 

Like i said getting younger and faster doesn’t define a team being in a rebuild. that's a very broad outlook on the term and I know you’re smart enough to understand that. The majority of teams are doing the exact same thing, that not a rebuild strategy. That’s just a necessity in the cap world.  That hawks have transitions just as much of there core in the last 4 years as Canucks.  They have 8 players on there current roster that are under 25. Canucks have 9. Do the hawks today have the same strategy as Canucks today?  

 

Retool and rebuilds are different strategies. Sure both involve a somewhat transitioning of players but the way they are approached and carried out are very different.  Again I know you are smart enough to understand that. You clearly understood that when you pointed it out 3 years ago. 

 

The problem is you and a few others mistake the idea that changing of strategies as a knock on JB’s ability or a knock on this team and feel the need to be the defenders. When in reality it’s not a critic on JB or the team at all. Just people pointing out the obvious. It’s funny that the entire hockey world agrees that Canucks have adjusted there strategy over the last 4 years. but there are a select few think there’s some different reality and that only they are smart enough to understand. 

I understand rebuild as... rebuilding the organization, including/especially the prospect pool/future team. Precisely what they've been doing and are continuing to do, since day one.

 

Things might appear 'different' as that process evolved but it's been the same plan. Since day one.

 

Their mantra has not changed (paraphrasing) 'main focus on the future while doing our best to support the current NHL team/remain competitive'.

 

I don't mistake anything and I give a rats arse what you think is a 'knock'. The long term plan was always to rebuild with youth. They were hopeful the early part of that (the 'retool') could be done on the fly to keep the team somewhat competitive around the twins. Due to numerous things (Sedins decline, injuries, guys like Vey having his parents involved in a murder conspiracy etc), that portion of the rebuild took the always possible 'losing' route. 

 

The goal has always been a rebuilt, post-Sedin team. The interim of trying to support the NHL team and hoping the early part of the rebuild would be enough to also 'retool' (supplemented with vets) around the twins doesn't mean the rebuild wasn't also happening.  I'm sure they were aware that losing was always a risk. The two processes however, are not mutually exclusive.

 

Maybe I just understood the long term vision better than you ;)

 

Call it a retool within a rebuild if it helps you sleep at night.

Edited by aGENT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aGENT said:

I understand rebuild as... rebuilding the organization, including/especially the prospect pool/future team. Precisely what they've been doing and are continuing to do, since day one.

Every year there are injuries.

 

2013 - 23 gms - 11W - 12L - 58GF - 61GA - 26pts - Nov 20. ---- 25th - 83pts

2014 - 23 gms - 16W - 7L - 72GF - 65GA - 33pts - Nov 29  ----- 10th - 101pts

2015 - 23 gms - 9W - 14L - 67GF - 62GA - 24pts - Nov - 26 ----- 28th - 75pts

2016 - 23 gms - 10W - 13L - 54GF - 70GA - 22pts - Nov - 29 ---- 29th - 69pts

2017 - 23 gms - 11W - 12L - 63GF - 64GA - 25pts - Nov - 24 ---- 27th - 73 pts

2018 - 23 gms - 10W - 13L - 70GF - 84GA - 22 pts Nov - 19 ---- ?

 

Since 2013/2014 season the team has 5 draft picks playing (starting the season)regularly over 6 seasons. And Gaudette.

 

Average NHL player career various sites - The average career length for an NHL player is five years, This site says that the 'average' NHL career is about "5.6 seasons", Skaters average 244 games. (about 3 full seasons IF) Forwards average 241 games. Dmen average 251 games. Goalies average 148 games

 

While it varies upon skill, perseverance, salary, apart from the top core players, the career is short. One reason could be because of all the new draft picks and/or limited number of contracts. This limits the amount of time for development 

 

The team, IMO is currently sitting 27th taking into account number of games played, games below .500, goal differential. Some may point to still being in a playoff spot by points, but most teams behind them are over .500 with up to 4 games in hand.

 

All this indicates is the team still needs top level drafted players, at least two more that can be on the team within draft +1 or better.

 

The goal differential just means more excitement. Be at peace with the outcomes.

 

Fans have endured 7 seasons of decline, two more that get top players, well really just the remainder of this season and one more, that takes Benning to his option year. 

Edited by TheGuardian_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aGENT said:

I understand rebuild as... rebuilding the organization, including/especially the prospect pool/future team. Precisely what they've been doing and are continuing to do, since day one.

 

Things might appear 'different' as that process evolved but it's been the same plan. Since day one.

 

Your claim (that this team is wanting to get young there or are rebuilding) is about as narrow as saying the team JB’s goal from day one was to build a cup competitive team. What team isn’t trying to add young cheap ELC into there roster. 25 of 31 teams are currently doing that.  How teams go about accomplishing that is what defines a rebuild vs retool vs

 

Rebuilding is a straight and clear vision for the team. It’s carried out top to bottom and followed through the entire organization.  in the way you draft, trade, coach, develop and it builds your teams overall goal. You can’t just pick and choose a few aspects and declare this a rebuild. That’s a very simplistic and narrow minded type of view. According to your criteria 90% of the league is in a rebuild which is hilarious and shows how far off you are.  But it does help you move the goalpost on how you define a rebuild. 

 

The goal the team had in 2015 is not the same goal the team has in 2019. That mantra has changed. The types of players we are acquiring, the types of roster we are icing and the expectations are all different from 2015. If canucks finish bottom 10 the next 2 years greens job is not on the line like WD’s was. We matched the amount of top 60 picks in the last two years from the previous 3 years combined. 

 

Its funny that you yourself just admitted the strategy changed from a quick plan. To a longer more drawn out focus. These are you exact words.

 

Quote

They were hopeful the early part of that (the 'retool') could be done on the fly to keep the team somewhat competitive around the twins. Due to numerous things (Sedins decline, injuries, guys like Vey having his parents involved in a murder conspiracy etc), that portion of the rebuild took the always possible 'losing' route. 

Due to some circumstances we were forced to give up on the quick transition (strategy) and fully accept the rebuild (different strategy). 

 

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck. Why are a few of you so focused on calling it a goose. It’s a duck.

 

anyways. I’ve had enough with discussion, it’s rather pointless to spend any amount of effort on something so easy and clear to see. It’s like trying to convince someone the world is not flat, believe what every you want, I don’t really care. . I know I’m right. You already pointed out in the past and just again today that you agree we have implemented different strategies. Add in the The old coach, the old president and the entire hockey world who also agree with me.  I don’t know why or how this is even still a discussion.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I don’t really care.

Proceeds to write short story :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aGENT said:

The goal has always been a rebuilt, post-Sedin team. The interim of trying to support the NHL team and hoping the early part of the rebuild would be enough to also 'retool' (supplemented with vets) around the twins doesn't mean the rebuild wasn't also happening.  I'm sure they were aware that losing was always a risk. The two processes however, are not mutually exclusive.

Also enjoyed how you completely ignored this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Your claim (that this team is wanting to get young there or are rebuilding) is about as narrow as saying the team JB’s goal from day one was to build a cup competitive team. What team isn’t trying to add young cheap ELC into there roster. 25 of 31 teams are currently doing that.  How teams go about accomplishing that is what defines a rebuild vs retool vs

 

Rebuilding is a straight and clear vision for the team. It’s carried out top to bottom and followed through the entire organization.  in the way you draft, trade, coach, develop and it builds your teams overall goal. You can’t just pick and choose a few aspects and declare this a rebuild. That’s a very simplistic and narrow minded type of view. According to your criteria 90% of the league is in a rebuild which is hilarious and shows how far off you are.  But it does help you move the goalpost on how you define a rebuild. 

 

The goal the team had in 2015 is not the same goal the team has in 2019. That mantra has changed. The types of players we are acquiring, the types of roster we are icing and the expectations are all different from 2015. If canucks finish bottom 10 the next 2 years greens job is not on the line like WD’s was. We matched the amount of top 60 picks in the last two years from the previous 3 years combined. 

 

Its funny that you yourself just admitted the strategy changed from a quick plan. To a longer more drawn out focus. These are you exact words.

 

Due to some circumstances we were forced to give up on the quick transition (strategy) and fully accept the rebuild (different strategy). 

 

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck. Why are a few of you so focused on calling it a goose. It’s a duck.

 

anyways. I’ve had enough with discussion, it’s rather pointless to spend any amount of effort on something so easy and clear to see. It’s like trying to convince someone the world is not flat, believe what every you want, I don’t really care. . I know I’m right. You already pointed out in the past and just again today that you agree we have implemented different strategies. Add in the The old coach, the old president and the entire hockey world who also agree with me.  I don’t know why or how this is even still a discussion.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:roflmao:

But the world is flat where is am standing, I used a level

 

I agree a lot of apologists and rewriting of history. :lol: 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Also enjoyed how you completely ignored this.

 

I’ll enjoy when the light bulb clicks in your head and you realize what you quoted involves two separate strategies a pre and post sedins. Haha. :lol:

 

Thanks for pointing it out again.  I don’t even think you know what you’re arguing about even more. Seems to me like your on agreement up until recently Canucks didn’t get full aboard the rebuild train. Prior to that they dipped there toes in the water but no more than every other team around the league. Ha this really is too funny.  :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I’ll enjoy when the light bulb clicks in your head and you realize what you quoted involves two separate strategies a pre and post sedins. Haha. :lol:

 

Thanks for pointing it out again.  I don’t even think you know what you’re arguing about even more. Seems to me like your on agreement up until recently Canucks didn’t get full aboard the rebuild train. Prior to that they dipped there toes in the water but no more than every other team around the league. Ha this really is too funny.  :P

All the same plan since day one. Evolution of same plan =/= 'change' or 'separate strategy'.

 

And it's funny that y'all are arguing the 'strategy changed' with the Burr/Hansen trades... and the Sedins were still on the team. How's that a post-Sedin 'separate strategy' exactly...? 

 

59 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

anyways. I’ve had enough with discussion...

 

I don’t really care...

Uh-huh...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Your claim (that this team is wanting to get young there or are rebuilding) is about as narrow as saying the team JB’s goal from day one was to build a cup competitive team. What team isn’t trying to add young cheap ELC into there roster. 25 of 31 teams are currently doing that.  How teams go about accomplishing that is what defines a rebuild vs retool vs

 

Rebuilding is a straight and clear vision for the team. It’s carried out top to bottom and followed through the entire organization.  in the way you draft, trade, coach, develop and it builds your teams overall goal. You can’t just pick and choose a few aspects and declare this a rebuild. That’s a very simplistic and narrow minded type of view. According to your criteria 90% of the league is in a rebuild which is hilarious and shows how far off you are.  But it does help you move the goalpost on how you define a rebuild. 

 

The goal the team had in 2015 is not the same goal the team has in 2019. That mantra has changed. The types of players we are acquiring, the types of roster we are icing and the expectations are all different from 2015. If canucks finish bottom 10 the next 2 years greens job is not on the line like WD’s was. We matched the amount of top 60 picks in the last two years from the previous 3 years combined. 

 

Its funny that you yourself just admitted the strategy changed from a quick plan. To a longer more drawn out focus. These are you exact words.

 

Due to some circumstances we were forced to give up on the quick transition (strategy) and fully accept the rebuild (different strategy). 

 

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck. Why are a few of you so focused on calling it a goose. It’s a duck.

 

anyways. I’ve had enough with discussion, it’s rather pointless to spend any amount of effort on something so easy and clear to see. It’s like trying to convince someone the world is not flat, believe what every you want, I don’t really care. . I know I’m right. You already pointed out in the past and just again today that you agree we have implemented different strategies. Add in the The old coach, the old president and the entire hockey world who also agree with me.  I don’t know why or how this is even still a discussion.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is post of the year and should be a sticky at the top of the page for everyone who wants to continually argue over a rebuild/retool and when it started!

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

The focus of the team has clearly changed as WD had pointed out in his quote.  You can choose to move the goalpost on what you define rebuild but that doesn’t make you right. The strategy clearly changed and we have a fired coach and a president that stepped down to prove that. 

 

Like i said getting younger and faster doesn’t define a team being in a rebuild. that's a very broad outlook on the term and I know you’re smart enough to understand that. The majority of teams are doing the exact same thing, that not a rebuild strategy. That’s just a necessity in the cap world.  That hawks have transitions just as much of there core in the last 4 years as Canucks.  They have 8 players on there current roster that are under 25. Canucks have 9. Do the hawks today have the same strategy as Canucks today?  

 

Retool and rebuilds are different strategies. Sure both involve a somewhat transitioning of players but the way they are approached and carried out are very different.  Again I know you are smart enough to understand that. You clearly understood that when you pointed it out 3 years ago. 

 

The problem is you and a few others mistake the idea that changing of strategies as a knock on JB’s ability or a knock on this team and feel the need to be the defenders. When in reality it’s not a critic on JB or the team at all. Just people pointing out the obvious. It’s funny that the entire hockey world agrees that Canucks have adjusted there strategy over the last 4 years. but there are a select few think there’s some different reality and that only they are smart enough to understand. 

Yet even after the 'R' word was mentioned they signed 3 ufa's and traded for a developed prospect (Pouliot). The same strategy they'd followed every year since taking over.

 

“I think I was making an effort to appease the people,” Linden said on Sportsnet 590 the Fan’s Prime Time Sports Wednesday. “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.

 

You read that statement and it's clear he finally said "rebuild" because some were too stupid, or too stubborn, to get what "transition to a younger team" meant. It really makes me wonder how many were completely confused when they changed the signs on doors from "employee entrance" to "associate entrance".

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 You can’t just pick and choose a few aspects and declare this a rebuild. That’s a very simplistic and narrow minded type of view.

Narrow minded is believing there's only one way to accomplish a goal.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Baggins said:

Yet even after the 'R' word was mentioned they signed 3 ufa's and traded for a developed prospect (Pouliot). The same strategy they'd followed every year since taking over.

This is about as face palm worthy of a post as they come. you can’t really be that dense?  How can one believe that signing a bunch of bottom 6 complimentary players is the same thing as handing out big money to key players. :picard:

 

How many picks have we traded in the last two years? 2 (and one of the picks moved was to obtain 2 more picks)

How many picks did we trade in the first 3 years? 10

 

How many top 60 picks did canucks average in the first 3 years as apposed to the last 2 years?

 

....Yeah sure looks like the exact same strategy. Maybe you just need thicker glasses. 

 

Its funny how some of you attempt to take such a broad term (get younger) and use that as a focal point.  Getting younger isn’t a strategy. It’s not what defines a team being in a rebuild.  There’s a hundred different ways one could accomplish that broad focus and literally every team in the league is doing that. But it’s the only way people like you can keep the goalpost wide open. 

 

Quote

You read that statement and it's clear he finally said "rebuild" because some were too stupid, or too stubborn, to get what "transition to a younger team" meant. It really makes me wonder how many were completely confused when they changed the signs on doors from "employee entrance" to "associate entrance".

 

The only stupid people are the ones that can’t see how the team has shifted its focus.  There’s literally only a handful or you and you will deny, deny, deny no matter who or how many people tell you differently.  Guess which president left the team becuase he didn’t like the direction the team was heading........

 

Too many people that let their emotions cloud their focus on reality and It’s discouraging to watch that idiocy spreed. The problem is some of you can’t handle criticism and since canucks is all you have in life, you take any sort of criticism as a personal attack and feel the need come to the teams defense. It’s quite pathetic and sad honestly. 

 

I’ll finished this off with a closer.  If the strategy didn’t change how come Green and WD don’t have the same expectations?  Riddle me that one Batman. Seems to me like the team and every other person in the hockey world sees the team has a different focus. Anyways. I’ll be blocking you and little JR, as I would find banging my head against the wall more productive.  Again....this is like trying to convince a person the world is not flat.  Well maybe if just took your head out of the sand and looked out the window once in a while you could see it for your self.  if you want to close your eyes and pretend you know better, have add it. I’ll take no part in that stupidity. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

How many picks have we traded in the last two years? 2 (and one of the picks moved was to obtain 2 more picks)

How many picks did we trade in the first 3 years? 10

How many NHL ready prospects did we have those first three year?

How do you get younger (rebuild) with no NHL ready prospects? Well you can draft them and wait years for them to be NHL ready, or you can trade for some prospects that have already gone through those development years.

 

You call me dense but you have it backwards, we traded 3 picks and received 1 the past two years. We traded a 2nd and a 4th with McCann for Guddy and 5th. Then we gave up a 4th in the deal for Pouliot. So in those two years we gave up a 2nd and two 4ths and received a 5th. Would that indicate we're still not rebuilding?

 

How many picks did we acquire in the the first three years? Well we had 20 picks in those three years so if we traded 10 we acquired 9. Simple math right?

 

So in the first three years we traded 10 and received 9 for a total of minus 1 pick over three years. Not rebuilding in your opinion. In the last two years we traded 3 and received 1 for minus 2 picks in two years. By your standard I guess we're still not rebuilding as we netted a bigger negative number of picks in trade the last two years than the first 3 years. Math: not for the dense.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Baggins said:

How many NHL ready prospects did we have those first three year?

How do you get younger (rebuild) with no NHL ready prospects? Well you can draft them and wait years for them to be NHL ready, or you can trade for some prospects that have already gone through those development years.

“You can draft and wait years”.....like how we’re currently heading to year 5 of the rebuild. 

 

where would this teams rebuild be without granlund gudbranson and baertschi. Really important to get that. Far more important than what we gave up to hit that result. You know the 3x 2nds, 3rd, 4th, 2x 5th’s, 6th along with forsling and McCann   K

 

Quote

You call me dense but you have it backwards, we traded 3 picks and received 1 the past two years. We traded a 2nd and a 4th with McCann for Guddy and 5th. Then we gave up a 4th in the deal for Pouliot. So in those two years we gave up a 2nd and two 4ths and received a 5th. Would that indicate we're still not rebuilding?

 

Haha….. just wow. 

Gudbranson was traded in the 15/16 season, on May 25 of 2016.  Considering that today is November of 2018, It’s quite easy to see, that the Guddy trade did not happen in the last two years, in fact it was over 30 months ago.   

 

Anyways here’s a free history lesson.  

Yes canucks traded Pedan and a 4th for Pouliot.  That’s one picked moved.  The other pick we moved was at the 2017 draft where Canucks traded the 4th round 112th overall pick (we obtained from the goldy deal) to Chicago, in exchange for the 135th (Kristoffer Gunnarsson) and the 185th(Petrus Palmu). That’s 2 picks we’ve dealt in the last 2 years. 

 

This is elementary stuff…and you wonder why I don’t want to have in discussion with you anymore,

P.S next time you might want to double check your math before you call someone dense.  When you are wrong It makes you like a complete fool, but good on ya…. It must just be destroying you inside knowing that you f’d up and there’s no way to back pedal out of it. 

Haha.  Anyways. Goodbye Frodo. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now