Are we in full rebuild. Or just clueless?

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

2 hours ago, J.R. said:

I'm getting so tired of hearing that lame sentiment on picks as well. 2nd rounders have a 20% chance of ever becoming actual NHL'ers, including even just fringe/depth ones. The odds only get worse the further in to the draft you get. 

 

They're lottery tickets.

 

Trading a select few of those 2nd and later picks for players your reasonably sure will actually play and contribute in the NHL has benefits beyond even the obvious advancing of development a couple years. A few years and a couple hundred actual NHL games in, those players can and likely will be surpassed by other, better prospects, trades, UFA's etc. At that point you move/package them to fill other holes and/or replenish additional draft picks. If they beat the odds and become better than average NHL'ers, all the better (Baer appears to be headed there).

 

Vey, Baer and Pedan are already better (or MUCH better) than 80%+ of of 2nd (or 3rd in Pedan's case) round picks and they're far from finished products. I don't know how anyone could possibly complain about any of them.

 

The 2nd we just moved with McCann netted us a young, previous 3rd overall beast of a D with likely untapped potential and just entering his prime. How many people complaining about draft picks would trade a late 1st and early 2nd for even a top 10 pick this year let alone 3rd overall? Never mind a 3rd overall D who's already developed?

 

Honestly it's boggling that people still manage to complain about it.

Further to your point re: the value of draft picks and odds of success:

 

Most scouts (and analysts) will tell you that the line for successful drafting is to average 2 prospects that develop into legitimate NHL players out of every seven picks (ie: each full compliment of picks for a year).

 

So far, even with the assets spent, the Canucks appear to be staying ahead of that curve under Benning.

 

If Vancouver can maintain that average, while also occasionally spending picks to add core pieces, then this team will enjoy a successful rebuild.

 

If Benning starts to really whiff at the draft, then those spent picks might come back to haunt us. Especially if the acquired players (from those spent picks) don't meet expectations. And even more so if the spent assets gain strong value for other teams.

 

That's always the risk.

 

It's much tougher to hit the bullseyes when you have less darts.

 

But Benning seems to have fairly good aim.

 

And bullseyes don't always take the form of good picks. Good player acquisitions can be just as impactful (if not more) on a franchise. 

 

Thus far, IMO the sum of the results of Benning's moves either look pretty good or are incomplete (and require more time for analysis). That's even while taking into account the mistakes made along the way (and I've called out this management group on several of them).

 

So while Benning hasn't been perfect, he still has been moving the needle in the right direction. This team is improving, both in the short term and the long term. Even after spending picks and bleeding some value on a few of his transactions (some of us can agree to disagree on that point ).

 

Of course, there's still a lot more work to be done (planning for and addressing the eventual post-Sedin reality comes to mind).

 

But so long as the roster is improving, young core pieces are being acquired to fill critical roles, and the prospect pool is continually being stocked, the ends will always justify the means--even if those means occasionally take the form of trading away quality future assets like high picks and good prospects.

 

Benning's approach might not be aligned with the plan I would have designed for rebuilding this team (in the crazy alternate reality where I'd even be considered for such a job). But honestly, I don't think ownership would ever allow Canucks management to implement the type of plan I'd want so it's kinda moot (unless we were in an even crazier alternate reality ).

 

So for the job he has, and given the constraints he's working under, I think Benning's done pretty well to-date (and recently). And that's coming from someone who sits firmly outside of the "JB-lievers" camp (just coined that one--cheesy but I kinda like it ).

[#1Luongofan]

On 5/29/2016 at 6:20 AM, McIlhargey the Lesser said:

Yup.

That we were contenders a few years ago has no bearing on this discussion. We had fallen far from that position well before new management was brought in. I am happy about the Sutter contract, I'm super excited about our youth movement and I think that the recent overhaul of the d corps is a thing of beauty.  This team is a lot better than you think it is.

typical blind fan and you probably also think a Canadian team has a chance to ever win the stanley cup as long as Bettman is running the show

[Neko]

Even if the Canucks don't make the playoffs and are somewhere in the top 20 I'd say that's an improvement.  The west conference is going to be fierce this year so Vancouver will have a lot of hard work.

[TheNewGM]

we still have no superstars on the list , or the radar even. We have lots of great second and third liners potentially. Now were going to over spend on a huge dman who has no offensive ability what so ever.. Oh but he can hit... jeewhiz great , so more potential for suspensions and penalties. and still less goals.. I hope we do not overspend on this guy, so far sutter comes to mind. and he did nothing last year.. sure he was injured, but that still counts as nothing .. stay healthy .. Bonino stayed healthy this year for half the price and so far is helping the penguins to a cup with multiple GWGs...

[McIlhargey the Lesser]

On 5/30/2016 at 4:08 PM, CanadianRugby said:

A lot better than he thinks it is?  We finished 3rd last in the league and our prospects are awful compared to other rebuilding teams. 

You are aware that a) this last year was a fluke due to injuries and vets suddenly becoming invisibe, b - our biggest actual problem was defense which even by the last month was vastly different than it was before that and it continues to change, and c) that the team we'll be icing this year will look very little like the one we iced last year?

The youth should take a step forward, our d looks big, mean and capable now and we have hard working vets. I doubt we come out of this off season without addressing a top six right wing and that'll be huge on its own.

so, yeah, A LOT better.

[clam linguine]

23 hours ago, TheNewGM said:

Oh but he can hit... jeewhiz great , so more potential for suspensions and penalties. 

Its called picking your poison.  

[coastal1]

40 minutes ago, McIlhargey the Lesser said:

You are aware that a) this last year was a fluke due to injuries and vets suddenly becoming invisibe, b - our biggest actual problem was defense which even by the last month was vastly different than it was before that and it continues to change, and c) that the team we'll be icing this year will look very little like the one we iced last year?

The youth should take a step forward, our d looks big, mean and capable now and we have hard working vets. I doubt we come out of this off season without addressing a top six right wing and that'll be huge on its own.

so, yeah, A LOT better.

so you are saying that last year was a fluke and the real Canucks team is the one from the year before?

[Canada Hockey Place]

Just a reminder of where we were at the start of last season. Before preseason/Hutton making the team.

 

"I'm happy with our D though. I think we've become more mobile and we'll be able to get out of our end and transition the puck up ice faster."

 

Not comforting. 

[the harry]

People who are complaining about the fact that Gudbranson doesn't bring much offensive just don't realize, that the defensive Dman Gudbranson allows Ben Hutton to shine offensively if he's paired with him. That's how it goes..

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, coastal1 said:

so you are saying that last year was a fluke and the real Canucks team is the one from the year before?

With the amount of roster turnover we've had the last three years and more coming this summer, I think it's foolish to state any year of the Canucks is the 'real' Canucks.

 

The team is in the middle of a massive turnover. The 'true' Canucks moving forward probably won't even start to be revealed for a couple more years.

 

And without the catastrophic amount of injuries to key players, no, I don't think we're anywhere near third last this past season. We aren't a lottery team any more than we're a contender.

 

 

[McIlhargey the Lesser]

3 hours ago, coastal1 said:

so you are saying that last year was a fluke and the real Canucks team is the one from the year before?

Not even a little bit. We are neither team. We've been a team in transition and last year our result did not do us justice. We are a potential playoff team if things go right, but not a contender.

 

In fact, if you've  been reading my posts you'll see that I've talk about how we are changing in the right direction, from d to youth and so on.

[McIlhargey the Lesser]

On 6/1/2016 at 1:47 PM, #1Luongofan said:

typical blind fan and you probably also think a Canadian team has a chance to ever win the stanley cup as long as Bettman is running the show

If I'm the blind fan, how come you don't address the changes I've mentioned rather than just giving a blanket dismissal?

I am an optimistic fan.

[CanadianRugby]

6 hours ago, McIlhargey the Lesser said:

If I'm the blind fan, how come you don't address the changes I've mentioned rather than just giving a blanket dismissal?

I am an optimistic fan.

Optimistic?  Yes.

Delusional?  Yes.

[#1Luongofan]

On 6/2/2016 at 11:37 PM, CanadianRugby said:

Optimistic?  Yes.

Delusional?  Yes.

Thank you someone who doesn't accept everything the management is doing is gold no matter what

[#1Luongofan]

On 6/2/2016 at 5:09 PM, McIlhargey the Lesser said:

If I'm the blind fan, how come you don't address the changes I've mentioned rather than just giving a blanket dismissal?

I am an optimistic fan.

That's right continue following the sheepherder

[Salacious Crumb]

On June 2, 2016 at 2:23 PM, J.R. said:

With the amount of roster turnover we've had the last three years and more coming this summer, I think it's foolish to state any year of the Canucks is the 'real' Canucks.

 

The team is in the middle of a massive turnover. The 'true' Canucks moving forward probably won't even start to be revealed for a couple more years.

 

And without the catastrophic amount of injuries to key players, no, I don't think we're anywhere near third last this past season. We aren't a lottery team any more than we're a contender.

 

 

Exactly - JB has had 2 seasons out of his 5 year contract to rebuild MGs leftovers. In 2 more seasons he will be at the point in his contract that he will be fired or re-upped based on performance.

 

I for one am quite looking forward to what JB does to finish reshaping the team. 

[Bob Long]

On July 1, 2015 at 4:36 PM, nitti999 said:

I do not believe JIm Benning or Trevor Linden truly had a plan when it comes to this hockey team. They seem to be now scrambling to make decisions that don't really add up to a direction either.

Some may argue that they are planning a rebuild and unloading contracts for the future. And bringing in the young players to develop. If so.....

Why sign Miller to a 3 year 6 mil contract only to trade a young semi proven goalie and fan favorite in Lack To mentor Markstrom? Seriously Markstrom hasn't proven a thing at the Nhl level and was on the way out the door last year

Why trade Kassian for a 31 year old player?
Why sign Vrbata? He's not young and will be gone next year
Why keep the Sedins to age at 7mil cap space.

Why? Why? Why?

What has the regime done to improve this team moving forward. Sure he drafted Virtanen and couple other potentials. But so did every other team in the league.

Sad days for Canucks nation. At least we are having great weather

 

For some reason a lot of people think this is a binary situation. You're either the best in the league or in full-on blow up. Its just not the case. 

 

Detroit has been competitive for longer than a lot of people on the boards have been alive, by always fielding a mix of veterans and younger players in roles where they can be successful. Call it "competitive rebuild" if you like. Or the "Detroit model". 

 

Thats what Benning is doing. Its looked ugly for the last 2 years as Benning has had to clean out some poor veteran contracts but the ones he's kept and the ones he's bringing in will up our competitiveness for a long time to come.