Jim Benning responds to the concept of "rebuilding" (pssst, he isn't doing it...)

[MJDDawg]

Should ask the Bruins how that worked for them when Benning was there and they created their current juggernaut. And 1st round exist talk is stupid imo. 8th place or 1st place, your in the tourny and have a shot at winning and that's really all anyone asks for. LA won being an 8th seed team the same season Burke in TO said he'd never want his team to be an 8th place team..

That argument is a fallacy.

The Kings finished in 8th, but were not an 8th place team. If you recall, they fired their coach before Christmas and hired Sutter, then traded for Jeff Carter in February. The Kings then went on to become one of the hottest teams in the league in the second half of the season. The fact they managed to sneak into 8th was a huge achievement, but they were certainly not a true 8th place team.

Of course making the playoffs gives the team a chance, but the numbers say that it's a very small chance. Here's some numbers up to the end of the 2013 season. If we were to include the most recent playoffs, the percentages change marginally.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nhl/what-do-nhl-playoff-seedings-means-for-stanley-cup-chances.aspx

Of the last 38 Stanley Cup Finalists ( including these recent playoffs), 27 of them have been the 4th seed or higher - or 71% of the finalists.

Of the last 19 Stanley Cup Champions, only three teams seeded lower than 4th have won it all - the 5th seed Devils in 1995, the 8th seed Kings in 2012, and the 6th seed Kings in 2014 (With 100 points in the tough Western Conference, I'd argue that the Kings were a much better team than what a typical 6th seed would be).

So yeah, there's always a chance of winning it or going deep just by sneaking into the playoffs, but history suggests that it's a very small chance.

Personally, I just don't feel that a 1 in 16 chance (or 6.25%) to win it all is worth giving up on a potential franchise player in next years draft.

[Goal:thecup]

The goal is not to get a high draft pick.

The goal is to win the Stanley Cup.

To win the Cup, you have to get in the playoffs.

Draft well, in the positions you earn or trade for, and use that as one cornerstone for building a Cup-Winning team.

Develop all your prospects well and make them work their tails off just to make the team = high competition for starting positions = high talent team.

The tanking idea is just so wrong on so many levels; you do not build a winning culture that way.

[Goal:thecup]

That argument is a fallacy.

The Kings finished in 8th, but were not an 8th place team. If you recall, they fired their coach before Christmas and hired Sutter, then traded for Jeff Carter in February. The Kings then went on to become one of the hottest teams in the league in the second half of the season. The fact they managed to sneak into 8th was a huge achievement, but they were certainly not a true 8th place team.

Of course making the playoffs gives the team a chance, but the numbers say that it's a very small chance. Here's some numbers up to the end of the 2013 season. If we were to include the most recent playoffs, the percentages change marginally.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nhl/what-do-nhl-playoff-seedings-means-for-stanley-cup-chances.aspx

Of the last 38 Stanley Cup Finalists ( including these recent playoffs), 27 of them have been the 4th seed or higher - or 71% of the finalists.

Of the last 19 Stanley Cup Champions, only three teams seeded lower than 4th have won it all - the 5th seed Devils in 1995, the 8th seed Kings in 2012, and the 6th seed Kings in 2014 (With 100 points in the tough Western Conference, I'd argue that the Kings were a much better team than what a typical 6th seed would be).

So yeah, there's always a chance of winning it or going deep just by sneaking into the playoffs, but history suggests that it's a very small chance.

Personally, I just don't feel that a 1 in 16 chance (or 6.25%) to win it all is worth giving up on a potential franchise player in next years draft.

So when LA was floundering, when they made the changes you talk about above, they could have tanked on purpose. They could have had a high draft pick. They would not have won the Cup. And that high draft pick might have been a flop or 4 years out from contributing to the team and the team would have a loser mentality.

[drdeath]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you make the playoffs in the new edition of the pacific division you're a cup contender. The lowest pacific team to make the playoffs just won the cup and it took them 7 games each to dispatch the other two pacific teams. As long as JB shows signs that he's building a team to compete well against our division he's in turn building a cup contending team. There might be a first round exit in the cards next year but if there isn't then look out.

[HockeyIsAReligion]

Hmmmm interesting...

[MJDDawg]

So when LA was floundering, when they made the changes you talk about above, they could have tanked on purpose. They could have had a high draft pick. They would not have won the Cup. And that high draft pick might have been a flop or 4 years out from contributing to the team and the team would have a loser mentality.

They were expected to challenge for the Cup that year. The reason Murray was fired was because they had gotten off to a horrendous start.

Totally different situation.

[Absent Canuck]

Look, I'm in favour of doing what's best for this team long-term.

Given where this team is at with respect to our aging core, the idea of bring in the kids to develop under their leadership is an excellent idea. But I still can't see why we couldn't have gone with our existing goalie tandem, or a least get a veteran back up for lack, then let the chips fall where they may.

If they happened to fall on a very high pick in one of the deepest drafts in years, then you're still accomplishing what's best for the team, without technically going into a full-on rebuild. You'd stock the team with another 5 or 6 excellent prospects and still go out and get a veteran goalie after next season.

As it stands now, if everything goes our way, we'll either sneak into the final playoff spot and suffer another quick first round exit, or we'll just miss a playoff spot. And for what?

Both scenarios will end up costing us a top 10 pick that in the 2015 draft could end up being a franchise cornerstone for the next 10 years.

They dont care. They are impatient. They think 12 out of 14 years in the playoffs , two presidents trophies and a game 7 finals isnt good enough. They want more on a silver platter.

They are impulsive. They want what they want when they want it. They want a team that can win right now. They dont care about the actual details of building a winner. They just want it and want it now.

Then when we dont make the playoffs, or miraculously make it and get blown away, then they wanna trade up in the draft. They dont care about how difficult it is to do so or what we would have to give up. They just want what they want right now.

To justify how to accomplish this, they use hyperbole to pretend how every draft pick we got will turn out to be superstars and every player will rebound or over perform. Every trade we make will supply us players who will out perform any other players who sign as UFA's elsewhere.

No other team can get better. Only us and our 6th overall all or 24th overall blah blah. We dont need a top 5 or first overall player. Our 20th or 15th or whatever draft pick will magically out perform the top 5 draft pick. Its the rationale they need to justify it.

They want the hockey team to win alright. Aint nothing wrong with it. They just refuse to have the patience it takes to build it.

And when it all goes wrong? Out come the knives. Blame this guy. Blame that guy. Get rid of this bum . Its like watching bipolar react to every single thing as it happens in real time without thinking any of it through.

To put it into simple terms? its spending all your money and living from paycheck to paycheck hoping it all works out instead of making a savings account and sacrificing for the future.

As for Linden and Benning? They have far more realistic concerns. The fan base. They need to show the fanbase they are trying to win as to sell season tickets.

Doesnt mean either of them think the team can win one friggin hockey game once the puck is dropped.

[spliced]

We'll see how it goes. While LA didn't tank like Pitt or Chi they did get Doughty #2 overall.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Pssst, the Sedins are teetering on the edge of their careers. And do you think the plan last season was to lose as badly as they did?

Pssst, the rebuild is going to happen regardless of what you think, folks.

[Goal:thecup]

Lidstrom didn't help Detroit win any cups?

[TOMapleLaughs]

The rebuild is on. The question is 'into what?' A legit contender with some legit franchise players who can win? Or some ho-hum team that can get into the playoffs and muck around a bit only to come away disappointed again.

94 was a fluke and 2011 was a crash n burn. I believe there is a better way. And it's up to Linden/Benning to get it done. I await results.

[Goal:thecup]

They are 90% done (made up the number).

We won't know more until they start whittling down the number of players vying for a spot on the team.

This year is very interesting and there will be changes and one of the things that is going to be very interesting this year is the Comets.

I look forward to seeing all the guys down there playing their guts out to get the call.

[Down by the River]

Benning's model is basically to do the opposite of what the Oilers have done. Given the lack of success with that franchise, I'm fine with that. Hall, Eberle, Ganger, Schultz, RNH, Yakupov.... all have been developed in a losing environment and haven't had a chance to experience success since junior hockey.

[EdgarM]

Don't know how anyone would think we could win with 70 million dollars worth of rookies. Who would they learn from? The Canucks owe it to their fans to try and win the cup every year, especially the ones coughing up big bucks to go to a game. The only teams I see sucking year after year are the teams full of rookies or the ones too cheap to spend their cap space.

[FaninMex]

That argument is a fallacy.

The Kings finished in 8th, but were not an 8th place team. If you recall, they fired their coach before Christmas and hired Sutter, then traded for Jeff Carter in February. The Kings then went on to become one of the hottest teams in the league in the second half of the season. The fact they managed to sneak into 8th was a huge achievement, but they were certainly not a true 8th place team.

Of course making the playoffs gives the team a chance, but the numbers say that it's a very small chance. Here's some numbers up to the end of the 2013 season. If we were to include the most recent playoffs, the percentages change marginally.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nhl/what-do-nhl-playoff-seedings-means-for-stanley-cup-chances.aspx

Of the last 38 Stanley Cup Finalists ( including these recent playoffs), 27 of them have been the 4th seed or higher - or 71% of the finalists.

Of the last 19 Stanley Cup Champions, only three teams seeded lower than 4th have won it all - the 5th seed Devils in 1995, the 8th seed Kings in 2012, and the 6th seed Kings in 2014 (With 100 points in the tough Western Conference, I'd argue that the Kings were a much better team than what a typical 6th seed would be).

So yeah, there's always a chance of winning it or going deep just by sneaking into the playoffs, but history suggests that it's a very small chance.

Personally, I just don't feel that a 1 in 16 chance (or 6.25%) to win it all is worth giving up on a potential franchise player in next years draft.

I don't see it that way.

We are going into the season likely as is. This means we are going to have people fighting for a spot all season as we have too many forwards, especially if some of our young guns take the step.

Competition will push our players to work harder, which will in turn push their value to the organization up increasing their worth for a trade at the deadline which could turn into our "Carter".

If we then play a 4 line up tempo game and "the new player" steps up then we could make an exciting push that will surprise.

Plus next season if we have a team that threatens we could also be attractive to a UFA or two that could help next year.

Our young guns that make it also get a season to grow and mature.

Benning has so many options that we don't need to tank

The future looks bright, and I'm happy I'm on board

[Gaudette Celly]

Given where this team is at with respect to our aging core, the idea of bring in the kids to develop under their leadership is an excellent idea. But I still can't see why we couldn't have gone with our existing goalie tandem, or a least get a veteran back up for lack, then let the chips fall where they may.

You admitted that bringing kids to develop under vet/core leadership is excellent, but then can't see why they did the same for the goaltending? Edmonton threw their young forwards into the fray on their own and they've failed, but you want to do the same with our goaltenders? In management's consideration, Lack is simply not ready for #1 prime-time yet -- he's only played 41 NHL games.

The goal is not to get a high draft pick.

The goal is to win the Stanley Cup.

To win the Cup, you have to get in the playoffs.

Draft well, in the positions you earn or trade for, and use that as one cornerstone for building a Cup-Winning team.

Develop all your prospects well and make them work their tails off just to make the team = high competition for starting positions = high talent team.

The tanking idea is just so wrong on so many levels; you do not build a winning culture that way.

One of the many problems with it is addiction as it perpetualizes itself:

"Oh, we tanked and got a top pick! Hmmm, he's not really ready yet... might as well tank again this year and get another, but this time let's get rid of our last decent older guys and tank even harder to get #1 or 2. Yay, another top pick, and he's ready. Hmmm, well he's pretty young still and the team around him completely sucks, as he's the only decent player we have. Maybe next year the other high pick will come in and help... so let's tank again, and get a THIRD high pick, it'll be easy (etc. etc.)... Okay yeah, attendance is down to 5,000 per game and people come with bags on their heads and we're the running joke of the city, but Stanley will be ours soon, we can't miss!"

How many top-10 (even top-5) picks do the Oilers, Islanders, Sabres, and Panthers have over the past decade, and how are they doing? At some point you have to actually build and ice a REAL TEAM and PLAY TO WIN. If not now, when?

I'm one of the people who wanted a rebuild but his comments shut me up. Since our GM says it's not going to happen then it's time for me to let it go. I usually agree with what you say for the most part but that said, I think we might disagree this time. I simply can't get the notion of "once you're in the playoffs it's anybodies game". Really? So if we go up against LA or the Hawks or STL or ANA, do we really have a chance? I think right now we might suffer a few early round exits for the next few years before our prospects really start making a difference at the NHL level.

"I'd say... more like one out of a million."

[MadOgre]

True there are veteran type players that need to be moved yet !

We are half way through our rebuild. TL and JB have quite a few up and comers to work with. Maybe they see the shelves as fully stocked ?

Edmonton is not rebuilding ! I have never ever seen a team supposedly rebuilding do a rebuild like Edmonton is doing. That's not a rebuild !

Its a TANK FOR THE LOTTERY strategy which is not a rebuilding strategy. How do you tank and rebuild at the same time ?

We are in the process of rebuilding. This is what a rebuild looks like.

In 2 years time we will only have 5-7 original players if that. That's a rebuild.

[BanTSN]

Edmonton is an example of a failed rebuild. They drafted a bunch of the same type of forwards in the 1st round and then drafted nobody of worth for rounds 2+.

Wanna see a good one? Try Chicago. They got 4 NHLers in one draft for a few, built their defense up first, developed them into stars, continued to build up their forward core with solid NHLers and capped it off with Toews and Kane.

The Oilers didn't have much of a defense to begin their rebuild and are now scrambling to get any.

We're in the same boat somewhat, with outside shots at top-4 positions going to most of our defenders. And then Benning right out the gate has the balls to trade McKeown for Vey? Wow. I mean McKeown isn't Orr, but he has top-4 potential for sure. While Vey is redundant here to say the least.

We're good up the middle for two-way guys in the future, and assuming some want to play wing, yay. But there's no franchise guy there. And there's no franchise guy anywhere else either. Virtanen is probably the closest out of the bunch to being that guy, but realistically? Nope.

Benning and Linden can say all they want about not rebuilding, but c'mon... Miller and Vrbata are just more of the same kinda old vets that are going extinct on this team. They were unable to stop their old teams from missing the playoffs last year. How in the heck are they going to stop the process here? At 11 million dollars no less.

[westcoast]

Benning is really in a no lose situation.he tinkers with free agents and tells the fanboys what they want to hear and if it pans out great.If things go to hell in a hand basket then he cleans up at the draft and the rest of the fanbase is happy.Not a ton of risk.

[wallstreetamigo]

Look, I'm in favour of doing what's best for this team long-term.

Given where this team is at with respect to our aging core, the idea of bring in the kids to develop under their leadership is an excellent idea. But I still can't see why we couldn't have gone with our existing goalie tandem, or a least get a veteran back up for lack, then let the chips fall where they may.

If they happened to fall on a very high pick in one of the deepest drafts in years, then you're still accomplishing what's best for the team, without technically going into a full-on rebuild. You'd stock the team with another 5 or 6 excellent prospects and still go out and get a veteran goalie after next season.

As it stands now, if everything goes our way, we'll either sneak into the final playoff spot and suffer another quick first round exit, or we'll just miss a playoff spot. And for what?

Both scenarios will end up costing us a top 10 pick that in the 2015 draft could end up being a franchise cornerstone for the next 10 years.

Long term having Eddie Lack thrown into the starters role on a bottom feeder team and letting him get shell shocked will not be the best thing for this team long term.

The reality is if we had patient (and judging by the Summer Summit questions, intelligent and knowledgeable) fans who would support a true rebuild without bailing out on their support, then the Canucks would consider it. But we don't, and therefore they won't.