Benning rebuild on the fly.

[wallstreetamigo]

It sounds like being "half pregnant". You either have a winning culture or you don't. Every tem in the league could say they have a winning culture because they have own games. What does that mean? WHo do you think feel more like winners...Nucks or Flames? Therefore who is bringing their youth up in a winning environment?

Exactly. Smoke and mirrors at its finest. I guess we need to go 0-82 next year to finally see changes that will actually help bring about that winning culture. Because regular season winning to get rolled in the playoffs only to hear the same core is good to go again is draining what little hope I have left.

[BMorrison 7]

I think he knows the fans would be more impressed by a great pick rather than another half-cooked playoff berth thanks to a cushy schedule at this point. However, whether he's able to act on this is a different story.

yes 100% agree

[DIBdaQUIB]

You got it, Dib. The team could also act Semi-Tough and hang pictures of Burt Reynolds in the locker room.

Good catch on the "semi-tough. We can also introduce the rookies to a "semi-fast" environment.

With such a strong semi-environment, it is almost guaranteed we are close to winning a semi-Stanley Cup.

[dura_mater]

Long-time fans should well know that without the star power we acquired through the draft, the Sedins, the team would not have enjoyed it's successes, both on the ice and financially, that they did over the past 15yrs. So i'm surprised that these same fans fret over what attendance would be like if the team missed the playoffs for 5 years (an arbitrary amount of years, based on nothing factual).

I'd more more concerned about attendance if the team didn't address the star power issue and instead pulled off some insane trades and signings in order to maintain it's pretender status while declining. Like signing Messier. Or TO trading for Kessel. These are the brutal decisions that need to be avoided here at all costs.

Further, what makes people think a 5yr tanking effort is needed? Is that number just pulled out to scare everyone? Realistically, 2-3 years should be enough, given the pieces already in place. And considering the path the team is already on, they are better served getting those years out of the way now. There is no written rule in place saying that we cannot. Get it done, come undone for Chychrun as a start, and move on as a vastly-improved team. This is the action we should have taken last off-season instead of this inflated regular season performance followed by a lacklustre playoff round in which we lost to the worst team in the playoffs. I'm not impressed. And neither are the majority of the paying fans, those who declined to sell out the place in the playoffs because, hey, they're not freakin' blind sheep like TO fans.

If we don't start taking steps soon, the Linden honeymoon will end quickly and Benning along with his coach will be out on his behind, I'll tell you this.

Yeah, and then Gillis got us Horvat. And all that further 'confusion' the season after landed us Virtanen.

Maybe he wasn't confused.

I like the way you think.

I think he got confused when he tried to switch from skill and puck control to bash and bruise Boston model.

And Boston isn't doing so hot these days either.

He did realize the Canucks needed youth though and made a good move to bring Horvat.

I think what TOMapleLaughs is suggesting is that he realised we needed youth and the Schneider trade and our poor season may have been more calculated than random or confusion on MG's part.

[dura_mater]

Somewhat surprised they left Clendenning off the D prospects list. He's a reasonable enough prospect. And he has to play for us next year or needs to clear waivers right?

They didn't? He's on Chicago's list at number 4. The list is just a bit outdated and haven't accounted for recent trades.

[Gaudette Celly]

"We’re going to go through other teams’ reserves list and we’re going to make up lists of names of guys that we think we can develop and that are going to help us win going forward,"

Vey, Clendening, Pedan, and Baertschi... so far.

[desiboynux4lifee*******]

Most People here think (or pretend) that Calgary is a bad team and that they

will get swept against Anaheim... I don't! I think it will be a hard fought series...

And what IF Calgary beats Anaheim??? I think this would actually make it a

good season for us... losing to the divisional Champion because of some bad

luck (refs) and Weber... I have to agree games 3 and 4 were brutal tough...

I'm just sick of people just bashing our team and give no credit to Calgary..

(I know it's tough to do so)

Were not mad because we lost to Calgary, but were mad at the way we lost to Calgary. Look, if this team played hard and averaged 30 hits a game, took them to game 7 and lost in a 1 goal game, I wouldn't be as upset. However, the fashion they lost in is unacceptable for any team. They had a 3-0 lead in a elimination game and they had 15 hits, I repeat 15 hits in a elimination game.

[TOMapleLaughs]

I'd say that game one of Anaheim-Calgary has added even more pause for review among our management.

[anaron]

Were not mad because we lost to Calgary, but were mad at the way we lost to Calgary. Look, if this team played hard and averaged 30 hits a game, took them to game 7 and lost in a 1 goal game, I wouldn't be as upset. However, the fashion they lost in is unacceptable for any team. They had a 3-0 lead in a elimination game and they had 15 hits, I repeat 15 hits in a elimination game.

Well put. And seeing how easily the ducks handled the same team last night makes it all the more difficult to swallow. If the Canucks played with any consistency they would have beat the flames, and then proceed to get rolled by the Ducks lol.

[VanGnome]

Kind of wanted to start my own thread on this but it seems relevant to post it in here.

I see where you're coming from OP. I agree I don't want to have our franchise modelled after Boston or Detroit; like most fans I want to see us win a cup and be a threat year after year. Neither Boston or Detroit are considered contenders regularly. Chicago's and LAs (aside from this year) have been considered contenders each year for the past 2,3,4+ years. Even Pittsburgh tanked and won a cup (albeit only one). People love to bring up Edmonton but for all we know they could turn into the next Chicago Blackhawks.

That being said, I disagree about Benning, I think he's done a terrific job thus far.

"All our forwards are old and he wants to draft 20th overall every year and thinks were gonna be like Anahiem in 5 years. Change isn't coming, same old same old."

Change has come.

Just look at where our prospects are ranked.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/team-rankings/fall-team-rankings-2014-15/page/2

We're 18th overall. That may not seem high but when in the past 15+ years have we ever had the amount of young talent we currently have? I can't remember a time. In just a year Benning has improved our prospect pool drastically (granted MG gets a little credit). Now back to our 18th overall rank, they have our top 5 prospects as:

"Jake Virtanen, RW; 2. Thatcher Demko, G; 3. Bo Horvat, C; 4. Nikita Tryamkin, D; 5. Hunter Shinkaruk, LW."

Calgary is ranked 2nd overall and guess who's on their list at number 3? Sven Baertschi.

Chicago is ranked 7th and guess who is their number 4 ranked prospect? Adam Clendening.

So the Canucks are ranked 18th overall NOT including our pickups of Baertschi and Clendening. That could potentially move us into the top 10 for prospects. And what did we give up for these 2? A 2nd for Baertschi and Forsling for Clendening.

"Does benning think he is just gonna replicate this and be like Detroit and get total studs in the later rounds. I don't know but it seems to me that he is trying to get into the first round every year and just see how it goes and get lucky"

No Benning clearly isn't trying to replicate this and draft studs in the later rounds. Look at the Baertschi trade as an example. He traded away a 2nd for a former 13th overall pick in Baertschi. Benning is quietly pulling off some nice steals and our prospect strength is improving drastically.

The Canucks have something I haven't seen in the past 15 years. A GM commited to building our prospect pool. After only a year at the helm, we have the strongest group of young players I can remember in a long time. A group that will transition nicely into our current core. Exciting times are ahead for us with Jim Benning guiding this team.

Pretty much this.

The thing is, this "core" has 1 or 2 real seasons of competition in it before it severely degrades to nothing, in those 1-2 years, youth will come in, get playing time and move up the roster. Come year three, youth will start taking over the lead roles as the remnants of the former core either move on or retire.

To approach it any other way would be disingenuous to the players already here who deserve every chance to compete. I'll admit that I have at times been on the #TankNation bandwagon, and had it not been for this past regular season I'd probably be driving the damn thing.

But looking back now, the team didn't get there because of the core, they got there because of the contributions of young talent and new acquisitions.

For example:

116G 139A for 255P from the youth/new/newer acquisitions of Vrbata, Bonino, Matthias, Dorsett, Horvat, Vey, Weber, Kenins, Sbisa, Clendenning, Baertschi, Biega and Corrado.

In other words, 13 of 28 players (46.4%) contributed to 48.5% of all goals scored, 34.3% of all assists scored and an overal 39.5% of total points scored by skaters.

Provided that trend continues to rise, by the time this core is "done" and are incapable of actually playing, we will have the majority of the team leading the way, just as it should be. This is a succession plan, all people need to do is take a step back and have a little objectivity.

Conversely, if the team were to trade the veteran core, we would lose a significant chunk of that 60.5% of total scoring, while drafting high, we would still be 4-5 years out from those draft picks making any kind of significant impact. With Benning's plan we're looking at 2-3 years from now. Suits me just fine.

[Captain Hindsight]

I am okay with rebuilding on the fly, as long as we make the right choices it should be okay. Our prospect pool is deeper than ever! Our farm team is our own, and we can already see the benefits (thanks Gillis). Benning and Trevor will obviously make a few mistakes here and there, but as a whole I feel like he and Trevor are putting us in the right direction.

We have,

UFA's Matthias and Richardson

and

RFA's Kenins, Stanton, Weber, Vey and McMillan up for new contracts in the off season.

I wouldn't mind letting Matthias walk, his final interview with the team was pretty lame. We have other guys that want to be here.

I'd love have Richardson back for the right price, he seems like a solid bottom six guy and an good role model for the young guys.

As for the RFA's, I'd like to re sign Kenins and Weber. If we do re sign Vey, Stanton or McMillan, I would hope we try and use them as bargaining chips for better players or picks.

2016-2017's season we will have more wiggle room, as bigger contracts are going to expire Hamhuis (4.5M), Bieksa (4.6M), Vrbata (5M), Kassian (1.75M), Lack (1.15M), plus I think we can all assume the cap will go up.

I think 2016-2017 will be the Canucks year. The young guys we have now will be much more experienced and physically mature. We will let a few of the veterans walk in hopes of filling the gaps with some slightly younger skilled free agents. As of right now I would still like to keep Hamhuis and maybe Eddie. Unless the others have really good season and post season next year, I don't see why we can't let them walk.

[JiffyPB]

The plan of drafting player X and waiting 4-5 years for them simply to show up to the league and pass that off as a "retool" is 50 shades of grey minus the sex. This team needs a #1 centerman and a #1 defenseman, but this ownership would rather cling on to this core and give us years of being a first round punchout rather than accelerate the rebuild only to inevitably to end up in the same place 3 years from now anyways. Watching the ducks smack around the lames, a team we choked a 3-0 lead to, really shows how much of a joke we are considering we couldn't beat the worst playoff team in the west that was also missing its best player..

[aGENT]

I'd say that game one of Anaheim-Calgary has added even more pause for review among our management.

Meh... Combination of:

-Some teams don't match up well (or do, if your Anaheim ).

-Anaheim's doing the small, simple things we didn't to take advantage of Calgary's weaknesses/break through their d-zone coverage.

-Anaheim's missing less key players.

[TimberWolf]

Most People here think (or pretend) that Calgary is a bad team and that they

will get swept against Anaheim... I don't! I think it will be a hard fought series...

And what IF Calgary beats Anaheim??? I think this would actually make it a

good season for us... losing to the divisional Champion because of some bad

luck (refs) and Weber... I have to agree games 3 and 4 were brutal tough...

I'm just sick of people just bashing our team and give no credit to Calgary..

(I know it's tough to do so)

For you it sounds like it would be easier to accept that we a good team that just got beat by a better one.

Not the case, unfortunately. The Flames didn't beat us, we lost and there is a difference. Luck has nothing to do with it and the refs didn't blow a three goal lead. We can't even claim injuries as Calgary had two big injuries before we even started the series. The Canucks did this all season. Just behaving like they only needed to show up and they would be entitled a win. How many 60 minute efforts do we recall?

As we watch the Ducks decimate the Flames we should only look at it as how bad the Canucks really are and what changes we need to start making

[awalk]

It sounds like being "half pregnant". You either have a winning culture or you don't. Every team in the league could say they have a winning culture because they have won games. What does that mean? WHo do you think feel more like winners...Nucks or Flames? Therefore who is bringing their youth up in a winning environment?

Then I'll go with winning environment, since they were over .500 by quite a bit this year, so they were a pretty winning team in the regular season. In the playoffs, they lost, early, so I altered my post so that people wouldn't b*tch about it...should have left it as is LOL

And I'll say both teams are. One team has to lose in the series, playoffs are a tournament, doesn't change the winning in the regular season being good for a young player's development. Neither team are the Oilers, which would be the opposite end. Now they got McD though, so, arguments for both sides..

[awalk]

I like the way you think.

I think what TOMapleLaughs is suggesting is that he realised we needed youth and the Schneider trade and our poor season may have been more calculated than random or confusion on MG's part.

I got what he was saying, I was clarifying what my post was about.

I doubt it was calculated by MG for things to fall apart like they did. Aquaman doesn't allow missing the playoffs and I'm confident Gillis knew that. He started to bring in youth because the Canucks desperately needed it. The season fell apart far worse than I think he expected.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Meh... Combination of:

-Some teams don't match up well (or do, if your Anaheim ).

-Anaheim's doing the small, simple things we didn't to take advantage of Calgary's weaknesses/break through their d-zone coverage.

-Anaheim's missing less key players.

Anaheim's lineup is also vastly superior, top-down.

[aGENT]

Anaheim's lineup is also vastly superior, top-down.

Yup, they're a better team than us for sure. That said, it's not night and day and ANA has weaknesses. We played them fairly close this year but I'd have given them the edge in a 7 game series.

Calgary could surprise still but I think ANA handles them fairly easily. I think the Canucks, healthy, would have been more of a handful for them.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Yup, they're a better team than us for sure. That said, it's not night and day and ANA has weaknesses. We played them fairly close this year but I'd have given them the edge in a 7 game series.

Calgary could surprise still but I think ANA handles them fairly easily. I think the Canucks, healthy, would have been more of a handful for them.

That just doesn't compute if we were manhandled by Calgary, who in turn is getting beaten down by Anaheim. Calgary lost Hudler and Ferland already. Not sure if they're going to surprise.

I think it just comes down to Getzlaf and Perry being way better, proven playoff performers that what we have available, and adding Kesler to the mix only adds to that strength. If they have weaknesses, they would not have been exposed by our squad.

I take no solace in our inflated regular season performance, esp. after watching that first round series against the weakest team in the playoffs.

[aGENT]

That just doesn't compute if we were manhandled by Calgary, who in turn is getting beaten down by Anaheim. Calgary lost Hudler and Ferland already. Not sure if they're going to surprise.

I think it just comes down to Getzlaf and Perry being way better, proven playoff performers that what we have available, and adding Kesler to the mix only adds to that strength. If they have weaknesses, they would not have been exposed by our squad.

I put no solace in our inflated regular season performance, esp. after watching that first round series against the weakest team in the playoffs.

We played poorly and had key guys out. We lost that series more than Calgary won it IMO. Also as I said earlier some teams match up better. Though if we had managed to squeak past Cal but continued to largely play the way we did in that series, ANA would likely have handled us just as easily.

As I said:

Calgary could surprise still but I think ANA handles them fairly easily.

In other words...anything's possible but it's not looking good for the red mile.