wake up band wagoners

[linden17]

its funny how so many of you follow the media that the canucks arent rebuilding. look at our line-up. Granlund, horvat, hutton, tryamkin, rodin, virtanen, baertschi, gaunce, stecher and even gudbranson . we have one of the youngest teams in the nhl but the media makes u think otherwise. if we dont win then we are a team lost in the mist, who needs to tank to rebuild. i got news for all of you..including the media. this team is rebuilding. this team also will probably go on another huge losing streak. its expected. what i dont understand is why the media plays it up like we should be doing better than what we achieve? I think people take it out of context when management says they want a winning atmosphere. they would like on any giving night their big guns to give them a chance to win.  which is very likely. that explains the signing of loui eriksson. some nights they got it. some nights not. but what they have on the table actually gives us a chance to win every night. thats a hell of a lot more than what Edmonton or toronto actually had before they lucked out on lifetime picks being mathews/  mcdavid. some nights we look our age ( young and old) some nights like tonight and agianst the rangers we looked competitive. thats what i think managment is seeing. both those huge wins our young guys stepped up. to me thats growing pains in the transition while our veterens led the way. expect to lose more than we win is all im saying during these next few years. but dont ignore that we are actually rebuilding already and doing it right.

[cripplereh]

I know we have like 25 players that are 25 or less  in the NHL,AHL and elsewhere so yes this team is in a rebuild weather people can see it or not!

[Kevin Biestra]

So what are the aspects of the last few years that you believe to be "rebuilding done right?"

 

You say that Edmonton and Toronto "lucked out" by getting those superstar picks, but that's what tends to happen when you finish 28-30th instead of out-in-the-first-round-to-25th, and that is a rebuilding strategy that some use to great effect.

 

We ran into bad luck with a 5th pick last year, but if we finished at the bottom of the league in the last few years, rather than the equally unpleasant first round exit or being a "garden variety" non-playoff team, then we'd have acquired some high picks of our own.

[guntrix]

Getting young doesn't mean successfully rebuilding though. How many of those players project to be elite? Maybe Horvat? inb4 this fan base tries to make a case for all of them.

 

We don't have the level or pedigree of prospects to make us a contending team in the future.

[linden17]

10 minutes ago, guntrix said:

Getting young doesn't mean successfully rebuilding though. How many of those players project to be elite? Maybe Horvat? inb4 this fan base tries to make a case for all of them.

 

We don't have the level or pedigree of prospects to make us a contending team in the future.

so by your logic we must win big in the draft? 20/20 hindsight. we are getting younger and putting it up on our roster. what more do u want? please explain because clealy the canucks are doing it wrong?

 

[linden17]

20 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

So what are the aspects of the last few years that you believe to be "rebuilding done right?"

 

You say that Edmonton and Toronto "lucked out" by getting those superstar picks, but that's what tends to happen when you finish 28-30th instead of out-in-the-first-round-to-25th, and that is a rebuilding strategy that some use to great effect.

 

We ran into bad luck with a 5th pick last year, but if we finished at the bottom of the league in the last few years, rather than the equally unpleasant first round exit or being a "garden variety" non-playoff team, then we'd have acquired some high picks of our own.

im actually confused to what u are asking? so we actually tried and didnt get a high pick is what you are saying?

 

[Kevin Biestra]

Just now, linden17 said:

im actually confused to what u are asking? so we actually tried and didnt get a high pick is what you are saying?

 

 

I'm mostly asking you to defend your claim that the Canucks are rebuilding and doing it right.

 

Since you dismissed the acquisitions of McDavid and Matthews as lucking out, I was saying that both are instances of effective rebuilding.

[spook007]

31 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

So what are the aspects of the last few years that you believe to be "rebuilding done right?"

 

You say that Edmonton and Toronto "lucked out" by getting those superstar picks, but that's what tends to happen when you finish 28-30th instead of out-in-the-first-round-to-25th, and that is a rebuilding strategy that some use to great effect.

 

We ran into bad luck with a 5th pick last year, but if we finished at the bottom of the league in the last few years, rather than the equally unpleasant first round exit or being a "garden variety" non-playoff team, then we'd have acquired some high picks of our own.

Maybe so, but he is right in his statement...we are definitely getting younger...

And forget about Soilers... they sucked ass for 10 years, and if they hadn't got lucky w McD they'd still be sucking...Is that what you plan is??? hope for the fairy godmother bringing us some luck in 10 years...maybe

[Baggins]

3 minutes ago, linden17 said:

im actually confused to what u are asking? so we actually tried and didnt get a high pick is what you are saying?

 

 

I think he's saying there should only be two types of teams, contenders for the cup and contenders for 1st overall pick. Of course that would mean around 10 teams trying to win and 20 teams trying to lose. Won't that be a fun league to watch.

[Kevin Biestra]

5 hours ago, spook007 said:

Maybe so, but he is right in his statement...we are definitely getting younger...

A forget about Soilers... they sucked ass for 10 years, and if they hadn't got lucky w McD they'd still be sucking...Is that what you plan is??? hope for the fairy godmother bringing us some luck in 10 years...maybe

 

If a player like McDavid comes along and you know it in advance (as we all did) and you aren't a remote Cup contender at the time (which we were not)...then you do whatever it takes to get that player in the draft.

 

Pittsburgh went from a joke to two cups because they got Lemieux.  Then from a joke to two more cups because they got Crosby.

 

McDavid is looking like the best player since Crosby, and Crosby for my money is the best player since Lemieux.  These rare players change the future of a team.

 

Sure the Oilers sucked, but sucking gets you high picks - top picks.  And it's better than just being "real bad" and getting Jake Virtanen.  Virtanen would be a complete throwaway in the Oilers' prospect system, whereas he's close to our prized possession.

 

I'll agree that we're getting younger, but you need to have young elite players on the way up...not just young players.

 

I don't get anything out of barely missing the playoffs, or making it and getting bounced in 4-6 games in the first round.  That achieves nothing.  We're bad, and we may as well reap the fruits that should come (down the road) with being bad.  Toronto spent years scratching and clawing to miss the playoffs by two points and get a crappy draft pick.  That seems to be the closest parallel to what we are doing these days.

[linden17]

7 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

I'm mostly asking you to defend your claim that the Canucks are rebuilding and doing it right.

 

Since you dismissed the acquisitions of McDavid and Matthews as lucking out, I was saying that both are instances of effective rebuilding.

okay...tell me where edmonton and toronto would be right now without those picks? not much better off than the nucks. but we would have the upper hand with the sedins and so forth.

[Kevin Biestra]

3 minutes ago, linden17 said:

okay...tell me where edmonton and toronto would be right now without those picks? not much better off than the nucks. but we would have the upper hand with the sedins and so forth.

 

But they DID get those picks.  That's what happens when you finish last or near last and win the lottery.  Why would we even pretend that this didn't happen?  If we pretend McDavid doesn't exist, do we get to pretend that there is no such thing as Demko, Boeser and Juolevi?

 

But if you want to, then fine...  Edmonton still would have a better looking future, in my opinion.  They would have kept Taylor Hall, for one.  As much as I love the Sedins, there aren't many teams in the league that wouldn't trade both Sedins in 2016 for Taylor Hall, and that's setting aside all other young prospects of the Oilers.  The Sedins will get 45-65 points for a few more years maybe and then retire.  Is that really "the upper hand" for a rebuilding non-contender?

 

The pre-McDavid Oilers had a lot to figure out when it came to team mentality, but it seems that it was correctible based on current results.

[Toews]

24 minutes ago, linden17 said:

so by your logic we must win big in the draft? 20/20 hindsight. we are getting younger and putting it up on our roster. what more do u want? please explain because clealy the canucks are doing it wrong?

 

Here is what I want the organization to stop doing:

 

1) Trading picks for marginal NHLers or other teams' castoffs.

2) Giving players retirement contracts, ie Vrbata, Miller and Eriksson

3) Rushing young players who aren't ready into the lineup because there are no other options.

 

What I want them to do:

 

1) Draft and develop our own talent

2) Start to move out talent before they reach UFA. In the last couple of years this team has let Santorelli, Matthias, Richardson, Vrbata and Hamhuis walk for nothing

 

 

All of the above are what rebuilding teams do. What the Canucks are doing is something entirely different to what is happening elsewhere in the NHL. If I were to give it a label I would say it is "retooling" rather than rebuilding and rarely do those ever work out. Remember Calgary under Feaster and Toronto under Burke?

[Baggins]

7 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

But they DID get those picks.  That's what happens when you finish last or near last and win the lottery. 

Doesn't that bold part indicate there's some luck involved? And that's ignoring having to do it in the correct year.

[UMB]

Lol our organization has no idea what it's doing. Period.

[Kevin Biestra]

Just now, Baggins said:

Doesn't that bold part indicate there's some luck involved? And that's ignoring having to do it in the correct year.

 

If you can increase your odds of getting a player like McDavid by 10% or 15%, you are negligent to not do so, particularly if you are losing nothing important (eg. going to miss the playoffs or fail miserably in them anyway).

 

13 minutes ago, Baggins said:

 

I think he's saying there should only be two types of teams, contenders for the cup and contenders for 1st overall pick. Of course that would mean around 10 teams trying to win and 20 teams trying to lose. Won't that be a fun league to watch.

 

It's about being realistic in certain situations and thinking long term.  I remember last year, when we were already mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, there was a large and loud voice on this forum calling to win every single game we could from then on out, because if we didn't, the consequences for Bo Horvat's growth would be disastrous.  It's now the next year, and, with everyone removed from the pressure of the moment, I think almost all of us will agree that whether we won or lost the last six games of the year will have no lasting effect on Horvat or anyone else.  It was a write-off of a year, and neither Horvat nor any prospect will look to two meaningless wins in the late spring of 2016 as when they turned the corner with a winning mentality.

 

Those wins are insignificant, a drop in the ocean, but people actually wanted to give up on acquiring Matthews or Laine to gain four or five or six extra points, even out of the playoffs, because somehow Horvat would be crippled mentally if we didn't.  Now, is there anyone who doesn't wish we had Patrick Laine?

[smithers joe]

22 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

 

If a player like McDavid comes along and you know it in advance (as we all did) and you aren't a remote Cup contender at the time (which we were not)...then you do whatever it takes to get that player in the draft.

 

Pittsburgh went from a joke to two cups because they got Lemieux.  Then from a joke to two more cups because they got Crosby.

 

McDavid is looking like the best player since Crosby, and Crosby for my money is the best player since Lemieux.  These rare players change the future of a team.

 

Sure the Oilers sucked, but sucking gets you high picks - top picks.  And it's better than just being "real bad" and getting Jake Virtanen.  Virtanen would be a complete throwaway in Oiler's prospect system, whereas he's close to our prized possession.

 

I'll agree that we're getting younger, but you need to have young elite players on the way up...not just young players.

 

I don't get anything out of barely missing the playoffs, or making it and getting bounced in 4-6 games in the first round.  That achieves nothing.  We're bad, and we may as well reap the fruits that should come (down the road) with being bad.  Toronto spent years scratching and clawing to miss the playoffs by two points and get a crappy draft pick.  That seems to be the closest parallel to what we are doing these days.

so, your saying that they shouldn't win another game or try to win. that is so absurd. teams fighting it out, trying to be the worst team in the league.  they could penalize players if they score goals.  imo, any team that tanks on purpose, shouldn't pick in the top ten.  if we end up with the first pick over all, then so be it, but if this team loses on purpose, it will be the day i follow chip kelly and only root for winning teams.

[alfstonker]

1 hour ago, linden17 said:

its funny how so many of you follow the media that the canucks arent rebuilding. look at our line-up. Granlund, horvat, hutton, tryamkin, rodin, virtanen, baertschi, gaunce, stecher and even gudbranson . we have one of the youngest teams in the nhl but the media makes u think otherwise. if we dont win then we are a team lost in the mist, who needs to tank to rebuild. i got news for all of you..including the media. this team is rebuilding. this team also will probably go on another huge losing streak. its expected. what i dont understand is why the media plays it up like we should be doing better than what we achieve? I think people take it out of context when management says they want a winning atmosphere. they would like on any giving night their big guns to give them a chance to win.  which is very likely. that explains the signing of loui eriksson. some nights they got it. some nights not. but what they have on the table actually gives us a chance to win every night. thats a hell of a lot more than what Edmonton or toronto actually had before they lucked out on lifetime picks being mathews/  mcdavid. some nights we look our age ( young and old) some nights like tonight and agianst the rangers we looked competitive. thats what i think managment is seeing. both those huge wins our young guys stepped up. to me thats growing pains in the transition while our veterens led the way. expect to lose more than we win is all im saying during these next few years. but dont ignore that we are actually rebuilding already and doing it right.

 

Great post bud.

You mention the two games we won but there were other games we lost where if we had got even a bit of a break in front of goal we would have come away with a win. However the doom merchants re-paint over the facts and will tell you we were garbage and boring, almost like they hadn't watched the games in full.

 

Of course none of this is helped by the media jackals, one of whom had a thread devoted to him "telling management" to play Stecher and Tryamkin more when they were already averaging 20 and 16 mins.

 

A 3rd round pick who had to be conditioned for most of the start of the season getting 16mins and an undrafted rookie playing his first games in the NHL averaging 20mins. 

 

Can he point to another team in the league where this is happening. The guy is a total idiot but he's not alone - how many idiots have posted "play the rookies more" on here, without even looking at their TOI.

 

Of course we know many of them use "the rookies" and mean Jake.

 

Well why would guys like Stecher and Nik knock their pan out every night if someone like Jake just has to do a bit of whining and slide off a few hits to get 16mins a night? No one has ever said Jake has to score, put up 4 shots a night and hit someone over the boards in his 10mins but he HAS TO GET INVOLVED AND WORK HIS ASS OFF. Then he will have earned more mins. It's nothing to do with mistakes (Stecher Hutton and Nik all make mistakes) it's to do with how you make up for mistakes and how you work.

 

It saddens me that this is Jake's second season and that much alone, hasn't sunk in despite playing with guys like Bo, Burr, Baertschi, Edler and the twins guys who all make mistakes but work to make them right.

[Baggins]

7 minutes ago, Toews said:

Here is what I want the organization to stop doing:

 

1) Trading picks for marginal NHLers or other teams' castoffs.

2) Giving players retirement contracts, ie Vrbata, Miller and Eriksson

3) Rushing young players who aren't ready into the lineup because there are no other options.

 

What I want them to do:

 

1) Draft and develop our own talent

2) Start to move out talent before they reach UFA. In the last couple of years this team has let Santorelli, Matthias, Richardson, Vrbata and Hamhuis walk for nothing

 

 

All of the above are what rebuilding teams do. What the Canucks are doing is something entirely different to what is happening elsewhere in the NHL. If I were to give it a label I would say it is "retooling" rather than rebuilding and rarely do those ever work out. Remember Calgary under Feaster and Toronto under Burke?

 

You don't want to trade picks for pre-developed players but you don't want to rush players either. You do realize we had a serious lack for NHL ready youth to replace our unloaded veterans don't you? There was a huge gap there to wait 3 to five years for later round picks to develop. Our top prospect in the AHL was Shinkaruk, who couldn't make a stinking Calgary team this year and is back in the AHL.

 

We were a playoff team, which of course doesn't trade it's pending ufa's, when Santorelli, Richardson, and Matthias walked to free agency. Btw, Santo was done for the season so I'm not sure anybody would trade for him and the other two were not exactly high reward type players.

 

Vrbata and Hamhuis both used their NTC's resulting in a rather poor selection of trade partners. That horse has been beaten to death and beyond the grave. You eother get it you don't.

[Kevin Biestra]

4 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

so, your saying that they shouldn't win another game or try to win. that is so absurd. teams fighting it out, trying to be the worst team in the league.  hey could penalize players if they score goals.  imo, any team that tanks on purpose, shouldn't pick in the top ten.  if we end up with the first pick over all, then so be it, but if this team loses on purpose, it will be the day i follow chip kelly and only root for winning teams.

 

I'm not saying that you ask Daniel and Henrik to score goals on their own net.  But it is the opportune time to try out some prospects from the farm and give them a taste of the NHL.  If they play poorly, they get their feet wet and learn.  If they play well and pop some goals, then you win and move up the standings (to your own drafting detriment) but do so while seeing a potentially bright future develop.  And you sell at the deadline, something the Canucks have always seemed loathe to do.

 

Just acquire some draft picks for existing contracts and get the guys of the future some NHL experience.  It's downright silly, at a management level, to shoot for the worst draft pick possible when you're already out of the playoffs.

 

Nobody likes to lose games, as evidenced by the "falling sky" about Bo's development if we lost any more games at the tail end of last year.  But you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and the last two times we made it to the Stanley Cup Final, we did it on the back of a 2nd overall pick (2nd and 3rd in 2011).