Warhippy Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Have seen some pretty outlandish statements recently about when the team started rebuilding. Having missed the playoffs only 3 times since 2001 as of 2014. I firmly believe we didn't start rebuilding until the 2016 draft. I truly think management believed the team could compete having finished as the 7th best team in the league, 2nd in our division in 2015. Some in the past even argued no rebuild could truly happen until the twins were gone. What does CDC think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 It was the 2017 trade deadline. That was when Linden said the Canucks were a rebuilding team and was the first time anyone in management had used the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 13, 2019 Author Share Posted March 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said: It was the 2017 trade deadline. That was when Linden said the Canucks were a rebuilding team and was the first time anyone in management had used the word. Added 2017 for ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Impossible to say given we don't know what conversations Aquilini had with Lindenning. There's no doubt that a "re-tool" started when new management first took over. What we don't know if they actually weren't trying to rebuild, or were doing some weird ass funky rebuild. Yes, the philosophy did seem to shift at that Burrows/Hansen deadline, which was when it seems they decided they were no longer going to give up picks and prospects for older players. Whether this was the actual start of the rebuild is up for debate. I argue that they had to change their rebuild strategy because the original was an epic fail. It was always a rebuild from the start; I don't think they could honestly tell themselves that the team was anywhere close to being a legit contender when they took over. If they did, there's something seriously wrong with how they evaluate their teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 2017. Traded Burrows for Dahlen and Hansen for Goldobin and a 4th then drafted Pettersson. So techincally we’re in year 3 of the rebuild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 1970 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 I think this is really the first year, after the Sedins left. Before that they were just a bad team collecting high picks each year. Benning did some good drafting, but until the Sedins left, this was still the old Canucks. This year - Sedins gone, Pettersson, Gaudette, Goldobin, Demko and Hughes all getting their shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Honestly don't view it as a 'hard' line in the sand like some want to insist on here. We started 'transitioning to youth' basically as soon as he got here (which is largely just marketing jargon for rebuilding, stop kidding yourselves). Heck, you can make a case that former GM Gillis made one of the first 'rebuild' moves by moving Schneider for the 9Th OA pick/Horvat. But people like to scream on about narratives and want a nice clean 'the rebuild started at X time/move' instead of simply viewing the reality of the situation. We were still a recent playoff/President's cup team when he came in and had a couple immovable twins and a bunch of guys with NTC's etc and no ready youth to slot in. We couldn't have torn it completely down even if we wanted to. Nor is 'tear down' synonymous with 'rebuild'. So he started to get younger and rebuild as the main focus, while simultaneously attempting to support the roster guys he couldn't move as best he could. That included attempting to build some (non-existent) younger organizational depth (Baer, Granlund, Vey etc) from basically nothing (and probably the most disputed part of the rebuild). As the rebuild rolled along and we added more youth to the NHL roster (and general organizational depth/youth elsewhere), the need to add near ready or NHL experienced youth has become less of a priority and picks and longer term prospects have become more so. All part of the evolution of the plan and not some 'change' or 'mark of the real rebuild'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 13 minutes ago, The 5th Line said: Is just plain being bad and rebuilding the same thing? If it is, it would explain a lot of the confusion around here We weren’t going to completely strip it down while the Sedins were still here, that just wasn’t an option. So Benning has really done the best he can with what he’s had to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Hard to say becaus the landscape is always changing and the goalposts keep shifting. I guess it’s a process going forward. Bold moves anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BettyWhites44 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 I believe it was when we drafted Bo. I’m sure Gillis saw the writing on the wall and began to put the pieces into motion. It most likely got sidetracked when the ownership group was still wanting to stay competitive which stalled it for a few years till benning took over IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 They tried to get PK Subban at the 2016 draft going into 16-17 so its hard to say they wanted to rebuild at the start of the year. But by the deadline they made those moves, & finally used the 'R' word. So its hard to say they werent by then 16-17 is when it really changed. Voted 2017. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakrami Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Havent aced a competitive team since 2011. My definition of rebuilding is within a given year what are our chances of winning the Stanley Cup. If the answer is 0, then we are a rebuilding team. Our team, with the top line the Sedins have been old and stale after 2011. Getting wrecked by "Ferland" in a playoff series, seriously...? The latest should be 2014, when Benning became GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Kesler was traded in 2014 because he wanted a shot a winning a cup, I would say the rebuild started then. Then overachieved in 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 40 minutes ago, The 5th Line said: What are we even doing that is considered "rebuilding? We are still signing and trading for older players with term. What has changed? We had just 6 picks in the 2016 draft. That's the year they decided to rebuild? Okay, rebuilding with what? Just banking on knocking all of their picks out of the park I really don't understand asking "what has changed?" I think that's pretty evident: 2017 2018 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, Drakrami said: Havent aced a competitive team since 2011. My definition of rebuilding is within a given year what are our chances of winning the Stanley Cup. If the answer is 0, then we are a rebuilding team. Our team, with the top line the Sedins have been old and stale after 2011. Getting wrecked by "Ferland" in a playoff series, seriously...? The latest should be 2014, when Benning became GM. So what were we in 2012 then? Or 2013 and 2015? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 13, 2019 Author Share Posted March 13, 2019 1 minute ago, Drakrami said: Havent aced a competitive team since 2011. 2012 presidents cup winners. 2013 8th overall in league 2nd in pacific 2014 womp 2015 7th overall in the league 2nd in pacific Not so sure that's accurate sir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, BettyWhites44 said: I believe it was when we drafted Bo. I’m sure Gillis saw the writing on the wall and began to put the pieces into motion. It most likely got sidetracked when the ownership group was still wanting to stay competitive which stalled it for a few years till benning took over IMO. And for suggesting to Aquilini that we rebuild, Gillis got fired. Considering that firing, I would say that Aquilini then hired JB to retool around the old core, which JB did until the 2017 TDL. Remember we signed Loui Errikson July 2016. That signing was clearly a retool around the old core move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberz21 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 At first, I wanted to vote 2017, because EP was drafted in that summer. Looking back in 5 years...that's probably when we'll remember where it all started, when EP was drafted. But IMO it started a little before that, at the end of 2016. 2014-15 Even though JB traded Kesler when he arrived before draft of 2014, I still think that, without sacrificing the future, he was hoping to build a competitive team around the Sedin and the up-and-coming Horvat. He wasn't entirely wrong as the team made the playoffs. 2015-16 Based on the prior year playoffs appearance, Canucks tried to fast track the rebuild by integrating 2014 1st round draft picks in Virtanen and McCann. Finishing 2nd last in the West was to me the start of the rebuild. Canucks acknowledge that they had squeezed everything out of the Sedin and the inevitable was coming. Therefore, to me, the rebuild direction started right there. Meanwhile, in the minors, even though Brock Boeser was 23rd overall pick, after an impressive first year in the NCAA he became the first building block of our rebuild. 2016-17 Even though the signing of Eriksson might seems contradictory to a rebuild process, IMO, the intention behind his signing was, 1 to maybe get more production from the Sedins because of their chemistry and alleviate the burden for the next generation. But also, become a top 6 gap between the Sedin and the next generation and maybe a mentor for EP. Of course, didn't work as plan, but I don't think he was brought in solely to make another run at the playoffs. Management could have clean up the house at the 2016 draft, but there wasn't much to sell, that's why they waited until Trade Deadline 2017, when the prices are crazy high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 45 minutes ago, aGENT said: Heck, you can make a case that former GM Gillis made one of the first 'rebuild' moves by moving Schneider for the 9Th OA pick/Horvat. don't try to recast the historical goalie controversy/mess as a first step in the rebuild the nucks wanted to move luongo but were unable to so they defaulted to moving schneider and intended to keep luongo long term and then they messed up the keeping luongo thing by completely disrespecting him and he demanded out and we lost the best goalie tandem in the league that whole thing was a mess at the time and management floundered on how to deal with it all granted, bo turned out to be an excellent move and marky has finally matured so it looks better currently but for a time there it appeared to be a gong show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.ed4ffd81393717a7b4296e6fdaac89fa.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.