The myth of the "tank" rebuild

[70seven]

http://lastwordonsports.com/2016/07/...gured-rebuild/

 

 

I was reading this article earlier today and it inspired me to challenge this kind of thinking.  I responded on HF but wanted to post here and get some thoughts from around CDC...

 

 

 

 

And the haters continue to hate.

Dont buy the dribble.

The article conveniently fails to mention of what the core philosophy of this franchise is:

Keeping a culture of competing. Culture is something thats difficult to establish. It's something that all businesses crave and its a foundational characteristic team management wants in this organization.

I'm on board with that. The trendy way to "rebuild" for the moment is to suck so bad for multiple seasons that you cannot aviod but to get good players at the draft. Is it a good or bad philosophy? Lose over and over again so you hopefully have a group of losers figure out how to win? Its just fundamentally flawed and goes against human nature.

In fact youve seen the fruit come into play... Oilers trade Hall, CBJ trades Johansen, Wash cannot get over the hump, NYI is still a mediocre playoff squad, Colorado has Duchene, and Landeskog on the trade block...  THeir prizes for sucking are available for trade. WHY?

Teams that have won through this process are Chicago (who built their team correctly adding defence first, then a 2 way C, then an elite winger, then through FA). And Pittsburgh (who just happened to fluke out and pick up a generational player in Crosby). Now youre watching Edmonton be deconstructed and rebuilt around McJesus (another fluke lottery pick), but still the team is not constructed to have real success...

Boston didnt win by tanking. LA didnt win by tanking. Anaheim didnt win by tanking. St Louis, San Jose, Anaheim, Dallas, Nashville, NYR... all of these teams are considered to be in the top 3rd of the league... and diddnt tank...

Just because TOR has decided that this is the way to build a winner, does NOT mean theyll win.

Name any other aspect of life where trying to fail gets you anywhere??

IMO the best prospect in the Canucks system is Brock Boeser. We didnt have to tank to get him. We tanked this last season largely because of injury, under performing veterans, and kids trying to figure out how to develop consistency and develop into professionals. It was a real tough season. We should have had one of the big 3. Instead other teams fluked into lottery, and yes we got a good player, but certainly not the "prize" of the draft.

Its really about building your team properly. Those proper pieces can come from all over the draft. The Canucks FINALLY drafted a D in the first round. HUGE step in the right direction. They acquired a big mean 24 year old D. Another HUGE step in adding a piece thats generally needed for post season success.

Demko, Boeser, Juolevi on the way. Horvat, Virtanen, Baertschi, Hutton, Tryamkin learning the ropes. This team IS re-building. Purposeful failure is not a part of this rebuild.... And THATS why pundits are flaming the organization?

I dont think theyre perfect by any means. THeres things the team could have and should have done differently, but you can say that about every team in the NHL that doesnt walk away champions.

The key is to give your team the best chance to win by getting into the post season. Who wouldve thought SJ would have won the West? Slim to none outside of the bay area. Thornton and Marleau were washed up trade bait... and Led that team to the Finals.... WIthout tanking.

 

People need to get away from this kind of thinking. The ideal of purposeful failure produces victory is purely false and simply a poisonous trend.

 

 

 

[Aircool]

5 minutes ago, 70seven said:

http://lastwordonsports.com/2016/07/...gured-rebuild/

 

 

I was reading this article earlier today and it inspired me to challenge this kind of thinking.  I responded on HF but wanted to post here and get some thoughts from around CDC...

 

 

 

 

And the haters continue to hate.

Dont buy the dribble.

The article conveniently fails to mention of what the core philosophy of this franchise is:

Keeping a culture of competing. Culture is something thats difficult to establish. It's something that all businesses crave and its a foundational characteristic team management wants in this organization.

I'm on board with that. The trendy way to "rebuild" for the moment is to suck so bad for multiple seasons that you cannot aviod but to get good players at the draft. Is it a good or bad philosophy? Lose over and over again so you hopefully have a group of losers figure out how to win? Its just fundamentally flawed and goes against human nature.

In fact youve seen the fruit come into play... Oilers trade Hall, CBJ trades Johansen, Wash cannot get over the hump, NYI is still a mediocre playoff squad, Colorado has Duchene, and Landeskog on the trade block...  THeir prizes for sucking are available for trade. WHY?

Teams that have won through this process are Chicago (who built their team correctly adding defence first, then a 2 way C, then an elite winger, then through FA). And Pittsburgh (who just happened to fluke out and pick up a generational player in Crosby). Now youre watching Edmonton be deconstructed and rebuilt around McJesus (another fluke lottery pick), but still the team is not constructed to have real success...

Boston didnt win by tanking. LA didnt win by tanking. Anaheim didnt win by tanking. St Louis, San Jose, Anaheim, Dallas, Nashville, NYR... all of these teams are considered to be in the top 3rd of the league... and diddnt tank...

Just because TOR has decided that this is the way to build a winner, does NOT mean theyll win.

Name any other aspect of life where trying to fail gets you anywhere??

IMO the best prospect in the Canucks system is Brock Boeser. We didnt have to tank to get him. We tanked this last season largely because of injury, under performing veterans, and kids trying to figure out how to develop consistency and develop into professionals. It was a real tough season. We should have had one of the big 3. Instead other teams fluked into lottery, and yes we got a good player, but certainly not the "prize" of the draft.

Its really about building your team properly. Those proper pieces can come from all over the draft. The Canucks FINALLY drafted a D in the first round. HUGE step in the right direction. They acquired a big mean 24 year old D. Another HUGE step in adding a piece thats generally needed for post season success.

Demko, Boeser, Juolevi on the way. Horvat, Virtanen, Baertschi, Hutton, Tryamkin learning the ropes. This team IS re-building. Purposeful failure is not a part of this rebuild.... And THATS why pundits are flaming the organization?

I dont think theyre perfect by any means. THeres things the team could have and should have done differently, but you can say that about every team in the NHL that doesnt walk away champions.

The key is to give your team the best chance to win by getting into the post season. Who wouldve thought SJ would have won the West? Slim to none outside of the bay area. Thornton and Marleau were washed up trade bait... and Led that team to the Finals.... WIthout tanking.

People need to get away from this kind of thinking. Its purely false and simply a poisonous trend.

 

 

 

Haha... if only you had a single piece of logic that wasn't completely flawed or biased... Maybe I could respect this opinion, I'd still think it's stupid though.

 

Culture. The most OVERRATED thing in sports. Not saying it isn't important. Go find me a team that won a cup with only culture. You need TALENT... It's the most important thing. A good culture is nice, not necessary. Good teams win. Bad teams lose. This argument is so overused and really has no merit.

 

Pittsburgh "fluked" to get Crosby? Edmonton "fluked" to get McJesus? How do you define a fluke? Because I think having some of the best odds to get something, and getting it, isn't a fluke... I don't know... Maybe I'm insane.

 

LA didn't win by tanking... Drew Doughty was #2 overall? Great argument against tanking, when your best player is a #2 overall pick. Great great great argument!!! The best defenseman in the NHL... how did they get him? They tanked. Sidney Crosby the best forward in the NHL... where was he drafted? Oh #1... K. Don't tank! Gotcha! LOL.... I'm literally having a laughing fit.

 

Building your team properly, how's the best way to do that? With good players... Where is the most likely place to get them? High in the draft... LOL.. But don't tank. Juolevi, Horvat, Virtanen, Baertschi? All Top-15 picks. Only Baertschi wasn't Top-10... But let's draft #18.... LOL omg LOL.

 

Who would've thought SJ would win the West? I don't know... Many educated hockey fans... They are a great team. FYI Joe Thornton was #1 overall pick and Patrick Marleau was #2 overall pick... and Joe Pavelski was a #205 pick... You can get lucky anywhere in the draft...but you don't get lucky at #1 - #3... You get quality there. They can bust, but they are a lot LESS LIKELY to bust than lower in the draft.. Players are drafted as a function of three things... NHL readiness, upside/potential, and their likelihood to bust. That's why smaller players fall, they are more likely to struggle to transition and bust. Scouting is used to evaluate these three things... Therefore a higher draft position means you have some combination of these three things that a team feels you are better than other players in those regards.

 

The thing is, many people who are pro-rebuild on these forums, aren't necessarily pro-tanking... It's probably more efficient... but some of them subscribe to the "Culture of losing" nonsense... Whereas I believe, you draft elite players until your team is just good enough to win. If they don't win, get more elite players.... Make some trades with the salary cap in mind, get complimentary pieces outside of the Top-5 (UNLIKE EDMONTON, WHICH IS WHY THEY SUCKED FOR SO LONG...), build a team. Start winning, and work on your culture. Bring in/develop leaders..... Culture means nothing without talent. Anyone who thinks otherwise might as well say, "Well we missed the playoffs by 6 points again, but at least we had the right attitude about it." It means nothing.

[Angry Goose]

EDIT: Nice reply OP- absolutely agree.

 

I trust JB/TL's ability to actually identify good players over the long term.  Doesn't mean they will hit it out of the park everytime but unlike Gillis&co. JB and his team will more often than not acquire good players.  Plus he knows how to build championship teams without tanking like the article suggests.  Love or hate them but BOS is a great example of a well balanced team.  LA as well, but that doesn't mean EVERY season is going to be a home run- that is the nature of sports.

[Aircool]

1 minute ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

That article is real talk- absolutely agree.

 

I trust JB/TL's ability to actually identify good players over the long term.  Doesn't mean they will hit it out of the park everytime but unlike Gillis&co. JB and his team will more often than not acquire good players.  Plus he knows how to build championship teams without tanking like the article suggests.  Love or hate them but BOS is a great example of a well balanced team.  LA as well, but that doesn't mean EVERY season is going to be a home run- that is the nature of sports.

That wasn't the article... that was his opinion lel... the article was pro-rebuild in the classical sense.

[S.Mouse!]

There's a time and place for a tear-down/tank style rebuild...

This isn't it.

 

If the culture of the team has failed, the locker room has fractured or the core has just burnt out due to age, then it's not a bad move to strip it for parts and start from scratch.

 

I think The Canucks still have a good culture, and good leaders who are still playing at a relatively high level.

Swapping out a couple of pieces per year in favour of younger players is a slow but prudent way to approach it.

I don't think guys like the Sedins will allow loser culture to creep into the room, even if they lose a lot, like last season. They won't get complacent.

[Angry Goose]

12 minutes ago, Aircool said:

That wasn't the article... that was his opinion lel... the article was pro-rebuild in the classical sense.

Thanks for the correction

[Aircool]

Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:

Thanks for the correction

No problem, if you want I can correct your opinion too.

 

lel

[Angry Goose]

Just now, Aircool said:

No problem, if you want I can correct your opinion too.

 

lel

haha thanks.  go for it, this is a public forum afterall

[Aircool]

Just now, SILLY GOOSE said:

haha thanks.  go for it, this is a public forum afterall

Well at least I can tell you can see some of the merits of a full rebuild. Your post above was pretty moderate... Unlike the die-hard NEVER_TANK crowd... Who have no logical reasoning for their viewpoint.

 

I'll just put a few simple questions to you. Do you think it's possible that the Canucks could end up being a mediocre team for 10+ years without a rebuild in the immediate future? Keep in mind that this is a 1 line team. The Sedins WILL RETIRE at some point. Boeser looks like a nice prospect, with maybe first line upside, but we need more than that. We just don't have enough high end prospects yet for the future... So it's entirely possible that after the Sedins retire, we'll have to rebuild at that point regardless of our wishes.. It may be forced on us.

 

So the remaining questions need no explanation. Why not rebuild now and sooner? What does 10 years of mediocrity do for the Horvats, Baertschis, Virtanens, Boesers etc as Canucks? Will they ever have success as Canucks? Or will they be past their prime if they do? Are we wasting their cheaper years? Are we creating a situation like we previously had with a huge age gap by delaying a rebuild after getting some premium prospects? How many more first-line/top pairing prospects do you think we still need? Would you prefer the greater likelihood of higher draft positioning in acquiring these players or lucking out later in the draft?

 

I think if you honestly consider many of these points, you'll see that we are in a very opportune position to spend 3-4 years doing a really great rebuild to be potentially the best Canucks team ever. Too bad we didn't start a couple years back... We missed out on some Generational (the most overused word ever) talents.

[Fred65]

30 minutes ago, Aircool said:

 

 

Culture. The most OVERRATED thing in sports. Not saying it isn't important. Go find me a team that won a cup with only culture.

 

Pittsburgh "fluked" to get Crosby? Edmonton "fluked" to get McJesus? How do you define a fluke? Because I think having some of the best odds to get something, and getting it, isn't a fluke... I don't know... Maybe I'm insane.

 

LA didn't win by tanking... Drew Doughty was #2 overall? Great argument against tanking, when your best player is a #2 overall pick. Great great great argument!!! The best defenseman in the NHL... how did they get him? They tanked. Sidney Crosby the best forward in the NHL... where was he drafted? Oh #1... K. Don't tank! Gotcha! LOL.... I'm literally having a laughing fit.

 

Building your team properly, how's the best way to do that? With good players... Where is the most likely place to get them? High in the draft... LOL.. But don't tank. Juolevi, Horvat, Virtanen, Baertschi? All Top-15 picks. Only Baertschi wasn't Top-10... But let's draft #18.... LOL omg LOL.

 

Who would've thought SJ would win the West? I don't know... Many educated hockey fans... They are a great team. FYI Joe Thornton was #1 overall pick rds.

 

.

First of all the poster never said "only culture" you said that !  and phrased your response on your own  words ... that's BS

 

When Edmonton jumps 3 places to get McDavid that is a fluke. They should have picked Strome or might mouse Marner. Crosby was a lottery  to me there's chasim between a Crosby a McDavid and Strome. Strome may be good McDavid and Crosby are franchise or generational players and the other thing they have in common they were a fluke

 

Thornton may have been a 1st O/A to BOSTON but came to SJ via a trade

 

other wise .... carry on

 

 

[Aircool]

On 7/3/2016 at 11:26 AM, Fred65 said:

First of all the poster never said "only culture" you said that !  and phrased your response on your own  words ... that's BS

 

When Edmonton jumps 3 places to get McDavid that is a fluke. They should have picked Strome or might mouse Marner. Crosby was a lottery  to me there's chasim between McDavid and Strome

 

Thornton may have been a 1st O/A to BOSTON but came to SJ via a trade

 

other wise .... carry on

 

 

Edmonton jumped 1 place to get McDavid.. They had the second highest probability.... What is this 3 spots nonsense? Edmonton was slotted to pick Eichel if they stayed where they finished....

 

Thornton was #1 to Boston you are right, he was traded for a #3 in Brad Stuart in a package... The point still stands... And the larger point was that it's best players are high draft choices... As Logan Couture went at #9.

 

LOL do some research and fact-checking instead of spewing nonsense.... I don't need your advice on how to argue, clearly we know who is better at it.

 

EDIT: btw I was corrected on this, Edmonton jumped 2 places. Lel... 

[Fred65]

7 minutes ago, Aircool said:

Edmonton jumped 1 place to get McDavid.. They had the second highest probability.... What is this 3 spots nonsense? Edmonton was slotted to pick Eichel if they stayed where they finished....

 

Thornton was #1 to Boston you are right, he was traded for a #3 in Brad Stuart in a package... The point still stands... And the larger point was that it's best players are high draft choices... As Logan Couture went at #9.

 

LOL do some research and fact-checking instead of spewing nonsense.... I don't need your advice on how to argue, clearly we know who is better at it.

Ditto, regardless McDavid  WAS  a fluke as was Crosby a FLUKE and yes Thornton came via  a TRADE. It had nothing to do with SJ where Boston ended up in the draft or tanking

[Professor.of.Perception]

5 minutes ago, Aircool said:

No problem, if you want I can correct your opinion too.

 

lel

Firstly your assessment of the "value of culture" is completely off base. There isn't a single aspect of human performance that isn't effected in someway by what would be classified as "Culture". Talented athletes, on countless occasions, fail or squander their abilities all the time, and among the top reasons are: Lack of confidence, lack of effort, no drive for success. All of these are psychological factors and can be altered or effected by the "Culture" (values and beliefs) a given team or cooperation has in place.
Culture significantly Affects performance, and while talent is needed, the culture in the locker room is the defining factor between the winners and the losers!

[70seven]

6 minutes ago, Aircool said:

Haha... if only you had a single piece of logic that wasn't completely flawed or biased... Maybe I could respect this opinion, I'd still think it's stupid though.

 

Culture. The most OVERRATED thing in sports. Not saying it isn't important. Go find me a team that won a cup with only culture. You need TALENT... It's the most important thing. A good culture is nice, not necessary. Good teams win. Bad teams lose. This argument is so overused and really has no merit.

 

Pittsburgh "fluked" to get Crosby? Edmonton "fluked" to get McJesus? How do you define a fluke? Because I think having some of the best odds to get something, and getting it, isn't a fluke... I don't know... Maybe I'm insane.

 

LA didn't win by tanking... Drew Doughty was #2 overall? Great argument against tanking, when your best player is a #2 overall pick. Great great great argument!!! The best defenseman in the NHL... how did they get him? They tanked. Sidney Crosby the best forward in the NHL... where was he drafted? Oh #1... K. Don't tank! Gotcha! LOL.... I'm literally having a laughing fit.

 

Building your team properly, how's the best way to do that? With good players... Where is the most likely place to get them? High in the draft... LOL.. But don't tank. Juolevi, Horvat, Virtanen, Baertschi? All Top-15 picks. Only Baertschi wasn't Top-10... But let's draft #18.... LOL omg LOL.

 

Who would've thought SJ would win the West? I don't know... Many educated hockey fans... They are a great team. FYI Joe Thornton was #1 overall pick and Patrick Marleau was #2 overall pick... and Joe Pavelski was a #205 pick... You can get lucky anywhere in the draft...but you don't get lucky at #1 - #3... You get quality there. They can bust, but they are a lot LESS LIKELY to bust than lower in the draft.. Players are drafted as a function of three things... NHL readiness, upside/potential, and their likelihood to bust. That's why smaller players fall, they are more likely to struggle to transition and bust. Scouting is used to evaluate these three things... Therefore a higher draft position means you have some combination of these three things that a team feels you are better than other players in those regards.

 

The thing is, many people who are pro-rebuild on these forums, aren't necessarily pro-tanking... It's probably more efficient... but some of them subscribe to the "Culture of losing" nonsense... Whereas I believe, you draft elite players until your team is just good enough to win. If they don't win, get more elite players.... Make some trades with the salary cap in mind, get complimentary pieces outside of the Top-5 (UNLIKE EDMONTON, WHICH IS WHY THEY SUCKED FOR SO LONG...), build a team. Start winning, and work on your culture. Bring in/develop leaders..... Culture means nothing without talent. Anyone who thinks otherwise might as well say, "Well we missed the playoffs by 6 points again, but at least we had the right attitude about it." It means nothing.

 

You are missing my opinion entirely.

 

Where to start...  gawd.

 

TALENT can be found all over the draft. Getting a top end player in the top 5 doesnt mean the organization PLANNED to fail to get that player.

 

This is my point.  Anyone whom believes that purposeful failure is a road to success is severely deceived.  You can be among the worst teams in the league...  THere will be losers every year.  It doesnt mean they have to plan to lose.  Its a philosophically incorrect mind set if you want to produce success.

 

Thornton and Marleau yes were early picks.......  YEARS AGO.  They missed the playoffs last season AND there were boat loads wanting to offload both players for whatever.

 

If the Canucks won the Cup next year, would you say its because the Canucks TANKED to get the Sedins and thats why they won?  Your logic makes no sense.

 

You feel culture is overrated?  Have you ever run your own business?  Managed or coached a team?  Culture is HUGE.  Ask the Penguins who sucked miserably before changing the coaching staff and establishing a different culture of how to play the game.

 

A culture of losing on purpose will produce nothing.  Which wolf do you feed?  

 

 

 

 

I think your confusion with my opinion is within failure and state of mind.  Failure is OK!  It happens, and we get up and learn from it, but if you feed failure, you will produce failure.  Success comes through pressing through circumstance and always moving forward despite the odds or popular opinion.

 

LA  got Doughty.  Yes!  Great player, and significant contributor to their cups.  They didnt set out that season with the intention of sucking so badly that theyd get Doughty.

 

SJ got Marleau because they were a budding expansion team.  They traded for Thornton.

 

My issue is with the popular opinion of intending to lose in hopes of our future being brighter.  Life simply doesnt work that way.  Now you can do your best and still finish last, but the CULTURE of your mind set is EXTREMELY important.

 

Go ask repeat champions about it.  All the talent in the world wont help you if your mind isnt screwed on correctly.  

 

Canucks management wont compromise on the mind set that you ALWAYS push for your best, despite and against the odds.  You may not experience immediate satisfaction.  Thats what teams that tank on purpose are actually looking for.  The fastest route to accumulate talent.  But without the mental intangibles that can easily get lost within this mindset, they wont likely get anywhere fast.

 

Keys in every business or state of life is to recognise failure, learn from it, and to always work your hardest to move forward.  This management team is doing just that.  Putting their best foot forward and ice the best team possible.  Its a good thing.

 

 

 

[Harvey Spector]

Good post. The way you build a successful team is from the back end out and down the middle. JB even mentioned that at the draft. That means focus on defence and centres. That's why he drafted Juolevi over Tkachuk because as the Taylor Hall trade proves defencemen are more valuable than wingers. 

 

All cup winning teams have had great success in building from the back end and through the middle. If you look at all the cup winning teams that is how they are built. You can go back to the 1970's and the model fits on every team. If you look at the most recent cup winners like Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA and Boston, even going back to Anaheim, Detroit, Colorado and New Jersey, they've all had the same nucleus for success. All those teams were strong down the middle and had a great defence with a #1 or #2 D in their lineup. 

 

The tankers mentality is that to get those core pieces you have to be picking in the top 3, so that means that you have to tank. That is their mindset. Theoretically speaking the higher you pick in the draft the better chance you have at getting a core player. This is their thought process and in this regard they are correct. 

 

What they fail to mention and realize is that out of all those teams I listed above NONE of them really tanked in the truest sense of the word. Chicago and Pittsburgh won lotteries and sucked for many years before they became great. Pittsburgh actually had two great eras with Lemieux first and then Crosby. You could make an argument that they did tank for Lemieux, so that is probably the one time it actually happened.  LA was a bad team for a very long time. Their rise to success actually happened with the trade for Gretzky. That's when they first started to achieve success. After he left they went into a downward spiral and only started to get better after the arrival of Dean Lombardi. They didn't tank to get Kopitar, they did however finish second last to get Doughty but I don't believe they actually tanked to get him, they were just really bad. Same with Chicago and Toews. They lucked out he wasn't picked earlier. Also players like Letang and Keith were selected in the second round. 

 

Anaheim didn't tank at all as they got their franchise players in Perry and Getzlaf in the middle and late first round. And when they won their cup they got Pronger through a trade and Niedermaher through free agency.  Same with Boston. Lucic and Bergeron were second round picks, Chara was acquired via free agency.  Krejci and Marchand were 3rd round picks. Tim Thomas was a 9th round pick. The two guys Boston got through top 3 picks, Seguin and Horton, weren't actually instrumental in them winning a cup. 

 

Also, acquiring top 3 picks in and of itself is not a guarantee to winning a cup either. Just ask the Canucks, who acquired their two franchise players in the top 3 picks in the same year and yet have not won a cup with them. Even Linden was a top 2 pick and we failed to win a cup with him as well.  Washington is another example of a team that drafted a franchise player at #1 overall and has failed to even get out of the second round. In most recent times Edmonton, Buffalo and Columbus are examples of teams finishing last or bottom 3 and acquiring multiple high end picks but can't even get into the playoffs. 

 

Tanking in and of itself does not guarantee winning a cup.  All it guarantess is the team getting high end picks. What they do with those picks and with the rest of their team is what determines how far they get in the playoffs. Also, there are not cornerstone franchise type players in every draft. In some years you get a Yakupov, Nugent-Hopkins, Daigle, Wickenheiser, Erik Johnson, Rick DiPietro, Patrik Stefan or Nathan MacKinnon at the top of the draft. These are not franchise cornerstone players. So you need a bit of luck as well in tanking in the right year.  If you tank and end up with a Yakupov then that really is a waste of a tank. But if you tank and get a McDavid or a Crosby then that is a different story. 

 

Anyways, the tankers will always make the argument that you need top 3 picks to win a cup and in most cases that is true, but what they fail to mention is that you need to pick the right guys at those positions when given a chance, every year is different, and also the rest of the team has to be filled out with quality players from the later rounds as well as making the right trades and acquiring the right free agents to achieve success. For all the top talent that Pittsburgh had this year they don't win the cup without their third line, all these players being acquired via trade in the previous offseason and during the year.  They also got lucky with their back up goalie taking over at the most crucial time. If they had to go with Fleury, their #1 overall pick from years past, I don't think they win the cup. 

[McIlhargey the Lesser]

1 hour ago, 70seven said:

http://lastwordonsports.com/2016/07/...gured-rebuild/

 

 

I was reading this article earlier today and it inspired me to challenge this kind of thinking.  I responded on HF but wanted to post here and get some thoughts from around CDC...

 

 

 

 

And the haters continue to hate.

Dont buy the dribble.

The article conveniently fails to mention of what the core philosophy of this franchise is:

Keeping a culture of competing. Culture is something thats difficult to establish. It's something that all businesses crave and its a foundational characteristic team management wants in this organization.

I'm on board with that. The trendy way to "rebuild" for the moment is to suck so bad for multiple seasons that you cannot aviod but to get good players at the draft. Is it a good or bad philosophy? Lose over and over again so you hopefully have a group of losers figure out how to win? Its just fundamentally flawed and goes against human nature.

In fact youve seen the fruit come into play... Oilers trade Hall, CBJ trades Johansen, Wash cannot get over the hump, NYI is still a mediocre playoff squad, Colorado has Duchene, and Landeskog on the trade block...  THeir prizes for sucking are available for trade. WHY?

Teams that have won through this process are Chicago (who built their team correctly adding defence first, then a 2 way C, then an elite winger, then through FA). And Pittsburgh (who just happened to fluke out and pick up a generational player in Crosby). Now youre watching Edmonton be deconstructed and rebuilt around McJesus (another fluke lottery pick), but still the team is not constructed to have real success...

Boston didnt win by tanking. LA didnt win by tanking. Anaheim didnt win by tanking. St Louis, San Jose, Anaheim, Dallas, Nashville, NYR... all of these teams are considered to be in the top 3rd of the league... and diddnt tank...

Just because TOR has decided that this is the way to build a winner, does NOT mean theyll win.

Name any other aspect of life where trying to fail gets you anywhere??

IMO the best prospect in the Canucks system is Brock Boeser. We didnt have to tank to get him. We tanked this last season largely because of injury, under performing veterans, and kids trying to figure out how to develop consistency and develop into professionals. It was a real tough season. We should have had one of the big 3. Instead other teams fluked into lottery, and yes we got a good player, but certainly not the "prize" of the draft.

Its really about building your team properly. Those proper pieces can come from all over the draft. The Canucks FINALLY drafted a D in the first round. HUGE step in the right direction. They acquired a big mean 24 year old D. Another HUGE step in adding a piece thats generally needed for post season success.

Demko, Boeser, Juolevi on the way. Horvat, Virtanen, Baertschi, Hutton, Tryamkin learning the ropes. This team IS re-building. Purposeful failure is not a part of this rebuild.... And THATS why pundits are flaming the organization?

I dont think theyre perfect by any means. THeres things the team could have and should have done differently, but you can say that about every team in the NHL that doesnt walk away champions.

The key is to give your team the best chance to win by getting into the post season. Who wouldve thought SJ would have won the West? Slim to none outside of the bay area. Thornton and Marleau were washed up trade bait... and Led that team to the Finals.... WIthout tanking.

 

People need to get away from this kind of thinking. The ideal of purposeful failure produces victory is purely false and simply a poisonous trend.

 

 

 

Pretty much agree with this. Especially the bolded. Only, we didn't tank. We just did poorly for the reasons stated. 

Oh, also agree with S.Mouse up there. This is not the time to tear down to rebuild. Toronto needed to do it because their whole team was built on a flawed premise. New management tore that team apart because no part of it suited any type of winning blueprint. The Canucks have great leaders and the thing to do is build around them and let them fade to supporting roles.

[HOFsedins]

1 hour ago, 70seven said:

http://lastwordonsports.com/2016/07/...gured-rebuild/

 

 

I was reading this article earlier today and it inspired me to challenge this kind of thinking.  I responded on HF but wanted to post here and get some thoughts from around CDC...

 

 

 

 

And the haters continue to hate.

Dont buy the dribble.

The article conveniently fails to mention of what the core philosophy of this franchise is:

Keeping a culture of competing. Culture is something thats difficult to establish. It's something that all businesses crave and its a foundational characteristic team management wants in this organization.

I'm on board with that. The trendy way to "rebuild" for the moment is to suck so bad for multiple seasons that you cannot aviod but to get good players at the draft. Is it a good or bad philosophy? Lose over and over again so you hopefully have a group of losers figure out how to win? Its just fundamentally flawed and goes against human nature.

In fact youve seen the fruit come into play... Oilers trade Hall, CBJ trades Johansen, Wash cannot get over the hump, NYI is still a mediocre playoff squad, Colorado has Duchene, and Landeskog on the trade block...  THeir prizes for sucking are available for trade. WHY?

Teams that have won through this process are Chicago (who built their team correctly adding defence first, then a 2 way C, then an elite winger, then through FA). And Pittsburgh (who just happened to fluke out and pick up a generational player in Crosby). Now youre watching Edmonton be deconstructed and rebuilt around McJesus (another fluke lottery pick), but still the team is not constructed to have real success...

Boston didnt win by tanking. LA didnt win by tanking. Anaheim didnt win by tanking. St Louis, San Jose, Anaheim, Dallas, Nashville, NYR... all of these teams are considered to be in the top 3rd of the league... and diddnt tank...

Just because TOR has decided that this is the way to build a winner, does NOT mean theyll win.

Name any other aspect of life where trying to fail gets you anywhere??

IMO the best prospect in the Canucks system is Brock Boeser. We didnt have to tank to get him. We tanked this last season largely because of injury, under performing veterans, and kids trying to figure out how to develop consistency and develop into professionals. It was a real tough season. We should have had one of the big 3. Instead other teams fluked into lottery, and yes we got a good player, but certainly not the "prize" of the draft.

Its really about building your team properly. Those proper pieces can come from all over the draft. The Canucks FINALLY drafted a D in the first round. HUGE step in the right direction. They acquired a big mean 24 year old D. Another HUGE step in adding a piece thats generally needed for post season success.

Demko, Boeser, Juolevi on the way. Horvat, Virtanen, Baertschi, Hutton, Tryamkin learning the ropes. This team IS re-building. Purposeful failure is not a part of this rebuild.... And THATS why pundits are flaming the organization?

I dont think theyre perfect by any means. THeres things the team could have and should have done differently, but you can say that about every team in the NHL that doesnt walk away champions.

The key is to give your team the best chance to win by getting into the post season. Who wouldve thought SJ would have won the West? Slim to none outside of the bay area. Thornton and Marleau were washed up trade bait... and Led that team to the Finals.... WIthout tanking.

 

People need to get away from this kind of thinking. The ideal of purposeful failure produces victory is purely false and simply a poisonous trend.

 

 

 

I couldnt agree with you more. Alot of people here think we wont make the playoffs this coming season but I beg to differ. With the additions Benning has made so far, I am starting to see a competitive team being built. Having a winning culture is going to lead to success. Losing and getting a chance at the lottery is just a terrible way of building a team. I thought you had perfect examples of teams that dont lose on purpose to get a chance to have a great player. With that said, I am excited for this upcoming season.

[Angry Goose]

6 minutes ago, Aircool said:

Well at least I can tell you can see some of the merits of a full rebuild. Your post above was pretty moderate... Unlike the die-hard NEVER_TANK crowd... Who have no logical reasoning for their viewpoint.

 

I'll just put a few simple questions to you. Do you think it's possible that the Canucks could end up being a mediocre team for 10+ years without a rebuild in the immediate future? Keep in mind that this is a 1 line team. The Sedins WILL RETIRE at some point. Boeser looks like a nice prospect, with maybe first line upside, but we need more than that. We just don't have enough high end prospects yet for the future... So it's entirely possible that after the Sedins retire, we'll have to rebuild at that point regardless of our wishes.. It may be forced on us.

 

So the remaining questions need no explanation. Why not rebuild now and sooner? What does 10 years of mediocrity do for the Horvats, Baertschis, Virtanens, Boesers etc as Canucks? Will they ever have success as Canucks? Or will they be past their prime if they do? Are we wasting their cheaper years? Are we creating a situation like we previously had with a huge age gap by delaying a rebuild after getting some premium prospects? How many more first-line/top pairing prospects do you think we still need? Would you prefer the greater likelihood of higher draft positioning in acquiring these players or lucking out later in the draft?

 

I think if you honestly consider many of these points, you'll see that we are in a very opportune position to spend 3-4 years doing a really great rebuild to be potentially the best Canucks team ever. Too bad we didn't start a couple years back... We missed out on some Generational (the most overused word ever) talents.

Your first point is more than fair.  The Canucks are elite forwards and the Canuck's prospects are big question marks right now, and the team could very well be a mediocre one into the future.  But in reply, I'd rather give JB a chance to identify talent in the draft outside of the top 10/free agency and see where that goes.  If you look at BOS's core players (lucic/Marchand/Kreji/ Bergeron/Chara etc.) none of them were top 10 draft picks much less first round picks, but together as a team you get incredible balance.  I'm sure many teams in hindsight would have drafted any of those players in the top 10 now, but that is the benefit of hindsight.  I do agree with you however that drafting in a high position will more than likely get you top level talent, and I do think it is fair to say you could go about things the way TOR is.   That is one way of going about building an organization.

 

The thing with predicting mediocrity is that you don't know- you are only guessing based on a lot of unknown variables such as how the current prospects will pan out, not to mention what the organization could do via trade or free agency.  Do the Canucks need to add more potential top 6 prospects?  Definitely.  To answer your question about where to draft them, I'll put my faith in Benning as a long time scout and former pro to do that.  

 

If a full tear down is required to re-build a team then fine, but I don't think the Canucks are necessarily in that position.  And with how the lottery works now, tanking for a high pick is less of a guarantee and even more frustrating as it was with the Canucks getting the 5th pick.  Look at DET as well.  Do you consider them mediocre?  Although they haven't had huge playoff success lately, everyone knows they are extremely competitive.  As a sport's fan I'm ok with that, and would rather be surprised by a team that can overachieve or rise to the occasion every now and then, as long as that team is always in the hunt.  DET is an excellent example of sustainable winning over the years without having to tank.

[lmm]

1 hour ago, 70seven said:

http://lastwordonsports.com/2016/07/...gured-rebuild/

 

 

I was reading this article earlier today and it inspired me to challenge this kind of thinking.  I responded on HF but wanted to post here and get some thoughts from around CDC...

 

 

 

 

And the haters continue to hate.

Dont buy the dribble.

The article conveniently fails to mention of what the core philosophy of this franchise is:

Keeping a culture of competing. Culture is something thats difficult to establish. It's something that all businesses crave and its a foundational characteristic team management wants in this organization.

I'm on board with that. The trendy way to "rebuild" for the moment is to suck so bad for multiple seasons that you cannot aviod but to get good players at the draft. Is it a good or bad philosophy? Lose over and over again so you hopefully have a group of losers figure out how to win? Its just fundamentally flawed and goes against human nature.

In fact youve seen the fruit come into play... Oilers trade Hall, CBJ trades Johansen, Wash cannot get over the hump, NYI is still a mediocre playoff squad, Colorado has Duchene, and Landeskog on the trade block...  THeir prizes for sucking are available for trade. WHY?

Teams that have won through this process are Chicago (who built their team correctly adding defence first, then a 2 way C, then an elite winger, then through FA). And Pittsburgh (who just happened to fluke out and pick up a generational player in Crosby). Now youre watching Edmonton be deconstructed and rebuilt around McJesus (another fluke lottery pick), but still the team is not constructed to have real success...

Boston didnt win by tanking. LA didnt win by tanking. Anaheim didnt win by tanking. St Louis, San Jose, Anaheim, Dallas, Nashville, NYR... all of these teams are considered to be in the top 3rd of the league... and diddnt tank...

Just because TOR has decided that this is the way to build a winner, does NOT mean theyll win.

Name any other aspect of life where trying to fail gets you anywhere??

IMO the best prospect in the Canucks system is Brock Boeser. We didnt have to tank to get him. We tanked this last season largely because of injury, under performing veterans, and kids trying to figure out how to develop consistency and develop into professionals. It was a real tough season. We should have had one of the big 3. Instead other teams fluked into lottery, and yes we got a good player, but certainly not the "prize" of the draft.

Its really about building your team properly. Those proper pieces can come from all over the draft. The Canucks FINALLY drafted a D in the first round. HUGE step in the right direction. They acquired a big mean 24 year old D. Another HUGE step in adding a piece thats generally needed for post season success.

Demko, Boeser, Juolevi on the way. Horvat, Virtanen, Baertschi, Hutton, Tryamkin learning the ropes. This team IS re-building. Purposeful failure is not a part of this rebuild.... And THATS why pundits are flaming the organization?

I dont think theyre perfect by any means. THeres things the team could have and should have done differently, but you can say that about every team in the NHL that doesnt walk away champions.

The key is to give your team the best chance to win by getting into the post season. Who wouldve thought SJ would have won the West? Slim to none outside of the bay area. Thornton and Marleau were washed up trade bait... and Led that team to the Finals.... WIthout tanking.

 

People need to get away from this kind of thinking. The ideal of purposeful failure produces victory is purely false and simply a poisonous trend.

 

 

 

Second bolded first, it did when Pittsburg did it for Lemieux, Buffalo got 2nd not 1st pick in 2015, jury is still out and will be for a while on whether it works for Toronto (2016) or Buffalo (2015).

Chicago, LA, Edmonton and Vancouver sucked for various reasons, but I would hesitate to call any of them "Purposeful Failure".

 

First bold, isn't that what Edmonton and Islanders have been doing? How is what Vancouver is doing different?

 

The recent Canuck success is still on the backs of #2 and #3 picks

 

[Nucker 67]

I'm not sure "tanking" really exists anymore. The purpose of tanking was to get the #1 draft pick, but the rules have now changed where even if teams finish last, they only have a 20% chance of getting #1. Why would the Canucks want to tank? It guarantees them no playoffs but that's about it.