Jim Benning

[Gurn]

I've read the last couple of pages in this thread, and just wanted to say well done to everybody.

good conversation, easily understandable no name calling.

An example of the best of what CDC can be.

[Baratheon]

I had a friend at work that was really ripping in to Benning a couple of months ago.  I asked him which Canucks GM he has liked.  He just stared at me and blinked lol.

[lmm]

14 minutes ago, Baratheon said:

I had a friend at work that was really ripping in to Benning a couple of months ago.  I asked him which Canucks GM he has liked.  He just stared at me and blinked lol.

Pat Quinn

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, Fred65 said:

For what it's worth both Theo and Sedin make some good and balanced observations. From my perspective there are areas that are passed over. JB has been GM now since 2014, that's 6 years!! It's trite to refer to Gillis IMO. Vcr was at the owners insistence trying to chase after SC glory before the Sedins left and the income too  I see little reference to Judd Brackett ( maybe because folks perceive the departure of Brackett ) But what the separation in influence has never been established, we may judge after Brackett leaves. JB record for Pro scouting needs  real attention and soon. He's either let down by the Pro scouts or he influences them too much. I liked the fact the JB went with Podkolzin when he new he was likely 3 year before we would see him in the NHL and his job was on the line, that takes jam IMO. I'm not sure JB has the ability to sign both Hughes and Pettersson ( big tickets) and still be able to sign an appropriate surrounding roster while staying under the Cap, so IMO it was a bad move to let Gilman leave. I've never been a fan of Weisbrod and Chris Gear is unproven and I don't see playing football as  a plus, he didn't apprentice in other organization and pick the brains of others. I hope JB is not a guy that likes yes man but it could be dissenting views are not appreciated, but that's speculation

There was a change in direction in that 6 year span. I think ownership knows this and thus why Benning is still employed as he's done what he's been told and has adapted the shift. Brackett does indeed get credit, but we don't know who's direction has led to the draft record as many scouts have been praised for their work. Was it Benning that implemented this high character aspect towards looking at young players and simply Brackett has found the players that fit the asks of Benning or was it Brackett that made an overhaul when he was promoted to chief scout?

 

As for pro scouting, again this comes down to the shift in mentality. You cannot gauge all signings equally. Early on, we were making moves to win with an exhausted team. We made stopgap signings during the start of the rebuild to ice a team. We are now trending up and have acquired JT Miller, Toffoli, etc who are players that have made an immediate and significant impact to the team. We added Myers, who despite many opinions against him, has played big minutes and has been useful to our much needed RD. We added Ferland who was a risk, but would've been a significant add should he have been healthy. I think the pro scouting is fine and they have managed the cap decently IMO not going after the big tickets knowing when they've been priced out and knowing how much cap they would like to spend to have depth on the team. Has Benning made some mistakes? Sure, but they are players that were impactful prior to joining us and for whatever reason, some players simply did not perform like they did prior to joining us due to injuries or whatever (IMO you can't blame poor moves on injuries as no pro scout could predict those).

[Baratheon]

25 minutes ago, lmm said:

Pat Quinn

Yep that's pretty much it for Vancouver fans.  My friend didn't think of him though lol.  

I mean I personally disagree.  We've definitely had more than just ONE good GM but you can't mention any of them by name without people rushing to tell you why they suck lol.

 

[Numba9]

2 hours ago, Toews said:

First you have to get people to accept that there is a such a thing as "rebuilding" and that they can't just apply whatever interpretation they deem fit to the term. In the context of sports the term "rebuilding" is clear it means you uproot the old foundation and start building anew aka "strip it down". This means players get jettisoned for draft picks, you make full use of your additional cap space by taking bad contracts of other teams and sign players to cheap 1- year "show me" contracts which can easily be flipped at the deadline for more picks. You may then add a veteran or two to insulate players but usually this is done at the cost of cap space and not at the expense of draft capital, which you are always trying to maximize. You are also trying to sign any RFAs (that you see a future for) to long term contracts(5-8 years) and trying to limit anyone you don't foresee being part of the future core to short term contracts (1-2 years).

 

This is a general model that teams in professional sports try to follow. Of course an ambitious/under-fire GM may step outside of that model and use their draft capital/cap space to land a big fish in free agency. This comes with risk though, do it too soon and you may just have built a middling team which misses the playoffs while spoiling draft position.

 

The Canucks were never following the model I described above and they never claimed to either. They didn't start using the word “re-build” until much later. This was what Linden said in 2016.

 

I think the Sedins were a convenient excuse, as great as they were, organizations don't make decisions based on appeasing any individual except the owner. You could have won 6 Super Bowls and they would still give you the business end of the boot. Everyone has a boss, and what the bossman says everyone has to follow or get out of the way. Linden from everything I have read resigned because he didn't think we were ready to take the next step, which probably means he was against the Miller trade and the Myers signing. 

 

PS: the Sedins were always all class. I don't think they would have thought it unfair at all that the franchise was making plans for the future. It was clear at the time the window had pretty much been slammed shut.

IMO when a team is in it's down-cycle the goal is to build and properly develop a new core of elite talent.   The "Rebuild" model you describe is something that teams in the NHL are avoiding because of the lottery changes and the poor environment it creates for player development.  In fact I think it was Bob Mckenzie who said a "Rebuild" similar to the Canucks model is where teams are going.  Keep first round picks, bring in characters players to teach and insulate the younger players.  Many quality free agents avoid rebuilding teams, so you have to trade for these character players.  And since you are rebuilding team, you likely don't have many quality assets to trade so you resort to trading lower draft picks.

 

Also this isn't the first time I heard this "sign players to cheap 1- year "show me" contracts which can easily be flipped at the deadline for more picks" . It was ridiculous the first time I heard it on HFboards and it's ridiculous to hear it now.  Most players that can be "flipped" at the deadline are not going to sign 1 year contracts let alone sign a 1 year contract with a rebuilding terrible team.   Yes, there are some examples of this, but it's pretty rare, and it's definitely not frequent enough to be a integral part of a rebuild model. 

[BlastPast]

25 minutes ago, Numba9 said:

IMO when a team is in it's down-cycle the goal is to build and properly develop a new core of elite talent.   The "Rebuild" model you describe is something that teams in the NHL are avoiding because of the lottery changes and the poor environment it creates for player development.  In fact I think it was Bob Mckenzie who said a "Rebuild" similar to the Canucks model is where teams are going.  Keep first round picks, bring in characters players to teach and insulate the younger players.  Many quality free agents avoid rebuilding teams, so you have to trade for these character players.  And since you are rebuilding team, you likely don't have many quality assets to trade so you resort to trading lower draft picks.

 

Also this isn't the first time I heard this "sign players to cheap 1- year "show me" contracts which can easily be flipped at the deadline for more picks" . It was ridiculous the first time I heard it on HFboards and it's ridiculous to hear it now.  Most players that can be "flipped" at the deadline are not going to sign 1 year contracts let alone sign a 1 year contract with a rebuilding terrible team.   Yes, there are some examples of this, but it's pretty rare, and it's definitely not frequent enough to be a integral part of a rebuild model. 

A+ post. I will add that I think it is concepts like those described above that create the schism between certain factions of the fanbase. There are people who get it and people who don't. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by BlastPast

[Fred65]

Theo

Quote

There was a change in direction in that 6 year span. I think ownership knows this and thus why Benning is still employed as he's done what he's been told and has adapted the shift.

That's true, the years previous were all about winning now and the cost be dammed.It was the most successful period in the Canucks 50 year history.  But I thought the realization for the rebuild came prior to the Aqualini's agreeing to the principal. It started when Vcr traded a real quality goalie ( Schneider ) for Horvat, it came as Torts pointed out this team is stale and needs a make over. Torts new it and Gillis new it, Aquallini persisted to think SC/profit first. And truth be told JB stated when he was hired we can turn this team around quickly, didn't quite workout like that. 

Quote

Brackett does indeed get credit, but we don't know who's direction has led to the draft record as many scouts have been praised for their work.

I recall in the 2018 draft JB saying to Brackett " WE got our guys" after the Woo picks and then he asks Brackett on the Madden pick … which school is he going too, Brackett new, JB didn't ie Brackett was more tuned in than JB … and so he should he's the head scout. He  had to push to get Madden. I tend to think Brackett's future will be determined ( pure speculation ) if Gillis take the NJ job. Gillis was the guy to give Brackett his first opportunity and besides Brackett is a New England guy. If he leaves he'll be sorely missed to my way of thinking. I might add credit to JB for giving Brackett the authority

Quote

I think the pro scouting is fine

I can't agree with that. Trading McCann plus a pick  for Gudbranson was a poorly thought out trade. It was apparent to any one with a hint of smarts that Gudbranson had low hockey IQ and poor feet, the game was going faster and smarter ie Hughes/Makar. I under stand the idea but the execution of looking for muscle was badly executed. I'm not impressed Ferland, ( mac Ewen was there for promotion )he came as damaged goods and bad odds he'd ever regain the status he had 5 years ago. Ericksson was OK the term was a disaster and the price enormous, he got taken by the agents. Toffoli is a good player but I question if he'll resign considering the Cap limitations so mission yet to be accomplished. Benn and Fantenburg qualify why they are better than Brisebois or indeed Sautner ( who had already played 23 games in the NHL with reasonable success ) I've followed Beagle for a long time and would have signed him but the scouts are paid to know better than me  Again the term is going to bite us. Neither other  teams cast offs Goldobin or Dahlin turned out to be winners, to be fair Motte was a good trade IMO and is better than Beagle. It strikes me there are way too many poorly scouted or thought out professional trades

Edited April 16, 2020 by Fred65

[Toews]

49 minutes ago, Numba9 said:

IMO when a team is in it's down-cycle the goal is to build and properly develop a new core of elite talent.   The "Rebuild" model you describe is something that teams in the NHL are avoiding because of the lottery changes and the poor environment it creates for player development.  In fact I think it was Bob Mckenzie who said a "Rebuild" similar to the Canucks model is where teams are going.  Keep first round picks, bring in characters players to teach and insulate the younger players.  Many quality free agents avoid rebuilding teams, so you have to trade for these character players.  And since you are rebuilding team, you likely don't have many quality assets to trade so you resort to trading lower draft picks.

You are correct that the lottery changes have forced teams to reevaluate how the rebuild approach works. Regardless my point is that one does not need to tear the team down to its bare bones. The Canucks could have still held onto the Sedins, Edler & Tanev and signed all the contracts that they did with the exception of Eriksson (6 years), Ferland (4 years) and Myers (6 years). We could have also saved the futures that were traded while we trying to fill holes on the roster (Vey, Baerstchi, Gudbranson, the Kesler trade, etc). 

49 minutes ago, Numba9 said:

Also this isn't the first time I heard this "sign players to cheap 1- year "show me" contracts which can easily be flipped at the deadline for more picks" . It was ridiculous the first time I heard it on HFboards and it's ridiculous to hear it now.  Most players that can be "flipped" at the deadline are not going to sign 1 year contracts let alone sign a 1 year contract with a rebuilding terrible team.   Yes, there are some examples of this, but it's pretty rare, and it's definitely not frequent enough to be a integral part of a rebuild model. 

There are always opportunities available to be capitalized on for those who have the foresight. Carolina was able to acquire Teuvo Teravainen for taking on Bickell's contract and TO's 1st this year for taking on Marleau's. Its a moot point as I doubt our ownership has any interest in pursuing that route, not all owners are willing to part with the almighty $ for a lottery ticket. I included that because it is a legitimate strategy which has been pulled off successfully to acquire assets. 

[Crabcakes]

3 hours ago, Toews said:

 

The Canucks were never following the model I described above and they never claimed to either. They didn't start using the word “re-build” until much later. This was what Linden said in 2016.

 

 

I love this tweet.  December 3, 2016........Linden completely NOT interested in a rebuild.  On Feb 27, 2017, less than 3 months later, Benning traded Burrows for Jonathan Dahlen.  And on Mar 1, 2017 he traded Hanson for Goldobin and a conditional 4th.  Apr 26, 2017 on the Sekeres and Price show, Linden said "call it a rebuild".  That's not much later at all.

 

In between was the Canucks mid season review which usually takes place over the Christmas break.  

[Toews]

10 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

I love this tweet.  December 3, 2016........Linden completely NOT interested in a rebuild.  On Feb 27, 2017, less than 3 months later, Benning traded Burrows for Jonathan Dahlen.  And on Mar 1, 2017 he traded Hanson for Goldobin and a conditional 4th.  Apr 26, 2017 on the Sekeres and Price show, Linden said "call it a rebuild".  That's not much later at all.

 

In between was the Canucks mid season review which usually takes place over the Christmas break.  

Here is the entire quote for reference... 

Quote

So what does the next chapter look like?
The veteran leadership, be it Daniel, Henrik or Alex Burrows, is certainly important to the growth and development of the Granlunds and Baertschis and Horvats and Virtanens and Stechers and Tryamkins and Huttons. Eighteen months ago we lost to the Calgary Flames in the playoffs. As disappointing as that was, we understood we had to keep transitioning, keep getting younger. We’ve done that. Maybe not as quick or as dramatic as people would like it to happen.

 

Perhaps some fans look at Toronto’s rebuild. Very dramatic. Stripping things right down. Getting rid of its best players. There’s a theory out there that the Canucks fan doesn’t have the appetite for an aggressive teardown.

What people fail to realize is the older group of players we had here—the Garrisons and Keslers and Bieksas and Higgins and Hamhuises—which are no longer with us, these are good people. These are leaders. Perhaps in Toronto that wasn’t the case.

 

We have Daniel and Henrik Sedin here, who are very important to this organization and icons in the city. They’re not going anywhere. I don’t know how I walk into the room and tell these guys, “Strip it down.” I’m not sure it’s fair to these guys. There’s different circumstances, be it in Toronto or Carolina or Vancouver, that require different routes. It’s not perfect, but I’m encouraged by the young players we’ve introduced, and we’ve got some young prospects.

 

Rebuilding is "strip it down". Retooling is what the Canucks did. The Canucks weren't following the traditional 'rebuild' model.

 

You and anyone else can call it whatever you want but it wasn't a "rebuild" as the term is understood in the context of professional sports in NA. 

 

Edit: Added the entire discussion for context. 

Edited April 16, 2020 by Toews

[Crabcakes]

3 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

 

That's true, the years previous were all about winning now and the cost be dammed.It was the most successful period in the Canucks 50 year history.  But I thought the realization for the rebuild came prior to the Aqualini's agreeing to the principal. It started when Vcr traded a real quality goalie ( Schneider ) for Horvat, it came as Torts pointed out this team is stale and needs a make over. Torts new it and Gillis new it, Aquallini persisted to think SC/profit first. And truth be told JB stated when he was hired we can turn this team around quickly, didn't quite workout like that. 

 

I agree, trading Schneider was a rebuild move.  It wasn't that simple but setting the soap opera aside, it was a rebuild move.  Gillis knew what had to be done.  But Aquilini couldn't come to terms with making the finals once, then starting over again.  You could say this disagreement between GM and Owner is what really got Gillis fired.  I think that is at least partly true.

 

[Toews]

4 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

I agree, trading Schneider was a rebuild move.  It wasn't that simple but setting the soap opera aside, it was a rebuild move.  Gillis knew what had to be done.  But Aquilini couldn't come to terms with making the finals once, then starting over again.  You could say this disagreement between GM and Owner is what really got Gillis fired.  I think that is at least partly true.

 

Gillis wanted a "rebuild". Kesler was almost dealt at the deadline for a package of futures. There is a quote from Bob Murray out there saying he had offered more at the deadline. We targeted Bonino and Sbisa to replace Kesler and Garrison, instead of the slew of picks and young talent the Ducks had in the pipeline. That was really the first indication that ownership wanted to field a competitive team while also mandating a retool. I haven't always loved Benning his entire tenure here but over time I have come to terms that he is the man for the job provided that ownership doesn't put pressure on him to accelerate the process.

[Crabcakes]

4 minutes ago, Toews said:

Here is the entire quote for reference... Linden was asked about rebuilding.

Rebuilding is "strip it down". Retooling is what the Canucks did. The Canucks weren't following the traditional 'rebuild' model.

 

You and anyone else can call it whatever you want but it wasn't a "rebuild" as the term is understood in the context of professional sports in NA. 

I know there is some debate as to what constitutes a rebuild and what constitutes a retool and it has been batted back and forth on CDC for years.

 

I can tell that you have a strong opinion here.  I take a more general definition because I think that there is always more than one way to skin a cat.

 

Rebuild, replace the core.

 

Retool, replace the supporting cast.

 

 

[Toews]

1 minute ago, Crabcakes said:

I know there is some debate as to what constitutes a rebuild and what constitutes a retool and it has been batted back and forth on CDC for years.

 

I can tell that you have a strong opinion here.  I take a more general definition because I think that there is always more than one way to skin a cat.

 

Rebuild, replace the core.

 

Retool, replace the supporting cast.

 

 

Fair enough. Its not worth the angst. I think we can have our own interpretations. 

[Crabcakes]

4 minutes ago, Toews said:

Gillis wanted a "rebuild". Kesler was almost dealt at the deadline for a package of futures. There is a quote from Bob Murray out there saying he had offered more at the deadline. We targeted Bonino and Sbisa to replace Kesler and Garrison, instead of the slew of picks and young talent the Ducks had in the pipeline. That was really the first indication that ownership wanted to field a competitive team while also mandating a retool. I haven't always loved Benning his entire tenure here but over time I have come to terms that he is the man for the job provided that ownership doesn't put pressure on him to accelerate the process.

Ya, I think that is was often pretty muddy what was really going on for the first number of years with Linden and Benning at the helm.  I don't even want to get into semantics.  They didn't have enough assets to play with and from the time of the Schneider trade the path was not clear.  Myself, I was battling with my expectations and what I was seeing being done.

 

All I know is that since Linden stepped down, things have been much more clear to me 

[theo5789]

4 hours ago, Fred65 said:

Theo

That's true, the years previous were all about winning now and the cost be dammed.It was the most successful period in the Canucks 50 year history.  But I thought the realization for the rebuild came prior to the Aqualini's agreeing to the principal. It started when Vcr traded a real quality goalie ( Schneider ) for Horvat, it came as Torts pointed out this team is stale and needs a make over. Torts new it and Gillis new it, Aquallini persisted to think SC/profit first. And truth be told JB stated when he was hired we can turn this team around quickly, didn't quite workout like that. 

Realization of the rebuild is one thing. Having the green light is another. If Aquilini didn't approve for the rebuild, then there's only so much that Benning can do. So Benning's "6 years" is not a full timeline of his efforts towards the rebuild. Given that and the direction this team has headed, I'd say he has turned this time around in quite short order. Even looking at a full 6 years, we are still further ahead than some franchises who are still rebuilding after longer struggles. For example, we haven't had the luxury of 1st overall franchise picks and yet many of those clubs haven't gotten much further despite being in the basement for much longer.

 

As for the Schneider trade, I saw it more as resolving the goalie controversy issue with the best they could get rather than it necessarily being a "rebuild" move. If I were rebuilding, why not stick with the younger Schneider and move out Luongo?

 

If this is an Aquilini issue, then that's one thing, but we are discussing Benning.

 

4 hours ago, Fred65 said:

I recall in the 2018 draft JB saying to Brackett " WE got our guys" after the Woo picks and then he asks Brackett on the Madden pick … which school is he going too, Brackett new, JB didn't ie Brackett was more tuned in than JB … and so he should he's the head scout. He  had to push to get Madden. I tend to think Brackett's future will be determined ( pure speculation ) if Gillis take the NJ job. Gillis was the guy to give Brackett his first opportunity and besides Brackett is a New England guy. If he leaves he'll be sorely missed to my way of thinking. I might add credit to JB for giving Brackett the authority

We will see what happens with Brackett and his impact should he decide to leave. Expecting Benning to know the full details of every prospect is unreasonable and thus why he has a scouting department. That doesn't mean that Benning hasn't set the goals for the scouting department to look for. That's not to say Brackett hasn't done a good job in his role, but it also doesn't discredit Benning from the drafting direction. They have draft meetings and discuss their targets, so it's not surprising that Benning refers to "we" in terms of getting their guys. Benning isn't arrogant and respects his group (an attribute he has implemented through the organization) and thus gives credit to all involved.

 

4 hours ago, Fred65 said:

I can't agree with that. Trading McCann plus a pick  for Gudbranson was a poorly thought out trade. It was apparent to any one with a hint of smarts that Gudbranson had low hockey IQ and poor feet, the game was going faster and smarter ie Hughes/Makar. I under stand the idea but the execution of looking for muscle was badly executed. I'm not impressed Ferland, ( mac Ewen was there for promotion )he came as damaged goods and bad odds he'd ever regain the status he had 5 years ago. Ericksson was OK the term was a disaster and the price enormous, he got taken by the agents. Toffoli is a good player but I question if he'll resign considering the Cap limitations so mission yet to be accomplished. Benn and Fantenburg qualify why they are better than Brisebois or indeed Sautner ( who had already played 23 games in the NHL with reasonable success ) I've followed Beagle for a long time and would have signed him but the scouts are paid to know better than me  Again the term is going to bite us. Neither other  teams cast offs Goldobin or Dahlin turned out to be winners, to be fair Motte was a good trade IMO and is better than Beagle. It strikes me there are way too many poorly scouted or thought out professional trades

The problem with this is the expectation that every trade/signing needs to be a hit to be considered a good pro scout.

 

Gudbranson was a 20+ min dman for Florida who was 24 years old when we acquired him and was a hard hitting RD that stood up for his teammates. Just look at the posts that suggest we go after a Dillon or Edmondson, etc and that's the type of dman many want. Two more teams took flyers on him after his time here. Perhaps the goal for him was to be a protector for Juolevi who would've been the brains of the pairing, but we all know that he had his setbacks and the plan didn't work out. I still respected Gudbranson's time here, but let's not forget that we added Pearson for him who's turned out well for us which is a plus to the pro scouting side.

 

I agree Ferland was a risky move. During the season, it was reported he was looking for 5-6 million a year for a lengthy term contract as a UFA. We got him for a fraction, so I guess we took the risk that he could overcome his issues and hopefully get him for a "bargain". It wasn't so much what he did 5 years ago, he was a 40+ point player for his most recent two years prior to signing with us. MacEwen wasn't a sure thing at the time and certainly not a potential 40+ point player at the time.

 

Benn was excellent in Montreal and was a local guy. He looked like he would be a great fit here. Fantenberg was a #7 pressbox guy. I think Sautner could've been the #7, but I think Fantenberg was formidable this year and almost stole the #6 spot, so I don't think it was the wrong move. Brisebois, I'm comfortable with him having another year on the farm and think he will get a long look next season on making the roster.

 

Beagle is one of the best 4th line centers. Not many 4th line centers get the tribute and honour he got from Washington in his return to the city. He is well respected and took a fair price to pry him out of Washington. He's been one of the best faceoff men in the league and has been one of our top PK guys.

 

Goldobin and Dahlen were noted that they needed development still. We got prospects and picks for aging vets, something many have called for. Goldobin didn't develop quickly enough and Dahlen wanted a shortcut.

 

As you've mentioned, Motte has been good. Toffoli trade will look better if we can re-sign him, but that's more on the trade being worth it rather than the pro scouting missing on the move as Toffoli has looked great with us. The Miller trade was a massive home run.

 

I don't think Benning has a perfect record, but his record doesn't concern me as someone that can't pro scout. When you try to "buy low" on players in hopes that they give you greater value than the return, then it isn't always going to work out. However this is the only way to make things happen when you start off with nothing much in value to move and face massive criticism if they do make a move with a piece of value to bolster the team.

[189lb enforcers?]

5 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

 

I can tell that you have a strong opinion here.  

 

Rebuild, replace the core.

 

Retool, replace the supporting cast.

Like trading Schneider, which you claim was a rebuild move, but it was more of a roster maintenance move at least partly due to cap restrictions, which, again, reads as retool rather than rebuild, IMO. 

 

[buddhahoodlum]

6 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

I know there is some debate as to what constitutes a rebuild and what constitutes a retool and it has been batted back and forth on CDC for years.

 

I can tell that you have a strong opinion here.  I take a more general definition because I think that there is always more than one way to skin a cat.

 

Rebuild, replace the core.

 

Retool, replace the supporting cast.

 

 

Yes. And no. There's many ways to skin a cat badly. But there's only one way to do it that will keep the precious fur intact. 

[Lazurus]

9 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

14 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

 

I can tell that you have a strong opinion here.  

 

Rebuild, replace the core.

 

Retool, replace the supporting cast.

Like trading Schneider, which you claim was a rebuild move, but it was more of a roster maintenance move at least partly due to cap restrictions, which, again, reads as retool rather than rebuild, IMO. 

You would think in a rebuild there would be less than a third of the team 30 and over and a GM would be trading for more picks and fewer aging vets. The Canucks do have 11 players 30+ on the roster now. That just doesn't seem like a young team.