Crabcakes Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 1 hour ago, gameburn2 said: That is accurate and fair. I have argued the same. But it is a strangely unsatisfying argument: somehow the situation here in Vancouver seems contradictory and fracturing. Why sign Eriksson forever and a day, why not move Edler and Tanev, why not find a way to get a pick or two out of FAs and Hamhuis in particular. Why don't we have a Marner, a Matthews or even a Larkin who is doing what "Team North America" is doing every day in today's NHL. There no longer is a "prime" for players: it's flat now: 20 to 27; McD and Matthews and Laine and apparently Tkachuk are good at 19 to 21. Bad news for all of us old timers: players no longer need to "mature" -- they have it or they don't by 20. Training and vetting is so good now, you kind of get what you're going to get pretty fast now. Just a theory, but there is growing evidence for it. Brian Burke understood something very important with respect to the GM's job. Much of it is about marketing. He understood that the Canucks needed to play an exciting, offensive style game because good or bad, the fans had to be entertained. This was the first time I was aware of this type of approach. Whatever Benning can do every year, he still has to put out a team that people can watch. Obviously, he has been struggling with this but it has to be a goal of his among others. The main goal has to be replacing the core. But to my point, he needs to maintain a certain structure to A. keep them watchable, and B. shelter the young players from the very toughest match ups that they aren't ready for. Benning has always kept a workable top line and top pair. If you look at the line up when he took over the team, the only players who are still on the roster are the Sedins, Burrows, Hansen, Edler and Tanev who were the top line and the top pair + Hansen. He also believes in having a top goalie. So he added Miller. He also didn't trust Burrows on the top line so he added Vrbata. Vrbata has since been replaced by Eriksson. A Benning team is always going to be built around this structure for lots of reasons. Top line, top pair, goalie. That's the minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 5 hours ago, gameburn2 said: You're right, Tanev probably won't be too old, but he's aging fast: injuries suggest as much. Besides, we're going to have to move him for picks. No way he's here in 2 years. As for the 14 million? It's useless. We don't need cap space for FAs, we need to develop players who feel loyal to the team and give it their best years (age 21-27). We don't need 29 yr olds who come here for the money. FAs are hugely overrated. You look at the teams who win, and the key players, the core, are players they drafted: Doughty, Quick; Toews, Kane, Seabrook, Keith; Stamkos, Drouin; Kuznetsov, Ovechkin; Crosby, Malkin, Letang; etc. The only exceptions are the bizarre tradeoffs of Seguin and Thorton. (Very, very rare to trade away franchise players.) How about flipping a free agent for 1st round picks and/or top prospects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 On 11/21/2016 at 8:25 PM, Nuxfanabroad said: When our 4 oldest fwds move on/retire, we'll be one of the league's youngest squads. Franchise had a half-decade black hole in drafting to overcome. Not sure what people could have expected? Yup, full rebuild would have been selling off as many pieces of the old squad as quickly as possible. Scorched earth. What we've clearly been doing is a retool where we've kept key pieces around and slowly moving away from the older core bit by bit as we have more and more youth ready to step in. It's happening a little more each year and we've seen a pretty clear movement where not only new players come in, but the young players we've already brought in are becoming more important pieces. The transition is happening slowly but surely, all the while with us trying to build up a prospect pool. Anyone expecting anything else from the original statement of a retool isn't paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 If we get a center in the top 5 pick we will be ok long as management lets him develop and does not rush him Besides that we will be good in 2 to 3 years and in the summer after the expansion draft maybe then is the time to trade the twins cause lets face it we need a 1C and winger which they are not anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Schneider Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, elvis15 said: The transition is happening slowly but surely, all the while with us trying to build up a prospect pool. Anyone expecting anything else from the original statement of a retool isn't paying attention. Most of us know what a retool is, and I understand what you are referring to. But what was the original purpose of the retool? To remain competitive (playoff spot) while providing a winning environment for our youngsters. Neither has happened, and it isn't bound to happen with our ageing core approaching closer and closer to their expiry date. The original plan of retool (a la Detroit Model) would have been optimal, of course, but there are reasons why most other teams choose to rebuild than retool. The odds of succeeding a retool are slim, and if you are to fail a retool (which the Canucks are clearly doing), it simply delays the inevitable of requiring to rebuild. Hence why a lot of us aren't very happy with the management; Canucks management is forcefully steering a ship towards a crash course and refusing to change course, whoever may be the captain steering the wheel. Just to clarify, I never asked for a fire sale (e.g. selling the Sedins and all)... however, some moves that should have been made were not made, and some moves that should have never been made were made. This management is so confused and conflicted, it pains to know the following few years will be nothing but a blank write-off and a time not-well wasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 15 minutes ago, elvis15 said: Yup, full rebuild would have been selling off as many pieces of the old squad as quickly as possible. Scorched earth. What we've clearly been doing is a retool where we've kept key pieces around and slowly moving away from the older core bit by bit as we have more and more youth ready to step in. It's happening a little more each year and we've seen a pretty clear movement where not only new players come in, but the young players we've already brought in are becoming more important pieces. The transition is happening slowly but surely, all the while with us trying to build up a prospect pool. Anyone expecting anything else from the original statement of a retool isn't paying attention. What's a re-tool? The Hawks have done it a couple of times. The Sharks did it too. It's keeping the old core and replacing the supporting cast and moving forward, taking another run at a cup. A re-build would be to replace the core. Since the Sedin's aren't taking another run at the cup, the Canucks are rebuilding. They are there to support the young players. To shelter and mentor them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 7 minutes ago, C.Schneider said: Most of us know what a retool is, and I understand what you are referring to. But what was the original purpose of the retool? To remain competitive (playoff spot) while providing a winning environment for our youngsters. Neither has happened, and it isn't bound to happen with our ageing core approaching closer and closer to their expiry date. So the question for the tankers -- what's your complaint? You got what you wanted, a team at the bottom last year and so far this year. I think it's more a case of compulsive complaining and negativity, as if the team really were at the bottom for multiple years on end due to a tear-down they'd hardly be cheering it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 I hate to say it but when WD came we made the playoffs, now we are in 90% of our games, just not in a playoff spot so why complain about it and yes once the twins,Burr,Dorsett are gone this team will be tons better with the picks we have and only get better if we do end up with a top 5 pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 If we had this site/tech back in the late 70's/early 80's, HALF of Van city's male population likely would've gone manic depressive. Population would have plummeted! Paralysis in analysis, gents. Cheer on a gradual ascent, or best track down a new hobby. Love this team(warts & all). The endless hand-wringing amounts to unnecessary melodrama. Just my 2 yen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gameburn2 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 1 hour ago, 6string said: But again you hand pick the all the right moves of the last couple of years but want to ignore all of the dark years ( Coach Wilson, Gm Burke and a plethora of great young stars ) it took the TML franchise to get to where they are now. My point is both Toronto and Edmonton were perpetual fails compare to San Jose or Tampa. You bring up an important point: when does a rebuild officially start, and what is a present regime really accountable for. I say the New TML "began" in 2012-2013, but of course you are right: they had assets in place, and people to work with. Kessel was there from Burke's days. When I was in university the Leafs were owned by Ballard lol. Talk about Dark! And yet Sittler and Thompson and Palmateer weren't bad at all in those days. And Salming earlier... and then later Wendel Clark, who should have had a longer career. All those players helped the successive administrations to build. Still, the Leafs were at a relative high when they took the Bruins to 7 -- that was in 2013 I think. A good Bruins team. I saw that last game, the Leafs should have won it. Did they need a better goalie? One more player to help hold a lead... or should management have just held course? We'll never know because that team was toast in less than two full years. I suspect that one more good center and a bit more experience might have been enough. In retrospect, the Leafs took too long to break up that core; but at the time, that core was fairly young and not half bad. Not easy to break up a young core. Overall they appear to have turned over a LOT of players and have more elite young talent than we do, even leaving Matthews off the list. But did they get further along than us because they had more to work with? What I would say is that the new mgt there was willing to move players ruthlessly: Kessel and Phaneuf in particular. Our equivalents would be either the two Sedins or at least Kesler and Edler. We did move Kesler though... so we're not as lame as some think. But to move Kesler for Bonino? That's not rebuilding, that's that retooling thing they tried. (And I hope have given up on.) They did get a pick... but should have tried for all picks and no Bonino, even if one or two were in 2017 or 2018. If you look back on the commentary about the Leafs in 2013-2014 you'll see that most of the press/commentary thought that the rebuild wasn't underway until Kessel and Phaneuf were dealt. Everyone assumed it would happen and that it was necessary. For some weird reason, Vancouver's management doesn't understand what's required to rebuild. It's the stars that have to go, the assets from the previous regime who are not the youth. The Leafs kept Kadri and still have Bozak, but all the rest are gone. Kadri was young enough -- and still had untapped potential; Bozak I don't know what that's about, perhaps a contract problem. Still, if we don't peg a team's situation to a regime, I'm not sure where we can begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 7 hours ago, gameburn2 said: You're right, Tanev probably won't be too old, but he's aging fast: injuries suggest as much. Besides, we're going to have to move him for picks. No way he's here in 2 years. As for the 14 million? It's useless. We don't need cap space for FAs, we need to develop players who feel loyal to the team and give it their best years (age 21-27). We don't need 29 yr olds who come here for the money. FAs are hugely overrated. You look at the teams who win, and the key players, the core, are players they drafted: Doughty, Quick; Toews, Kane, Seabrook, Keith; Stamkos, Drouin; Kuznetsov, Ovechkin; Crosby, Malkin, Letang; etc. The only exceptions are the bizarre tradeoffs of Seguin and Thorton. (Very, very rare to trade away franchise players.) I'm assuming this hasn't been addressed as yet. Having an $14 million in cap space on a re-building team is far from useless. What I'm thinking here is "selling" that cap space to another team who has a contract they want to get out from under (as we've seen with the Leafs as well as other teams). The Canucks take a bad contract and they also get a high pick and/or prospect for some lesser assets. The Garrison deal is also an example of this type of trade. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said: So the question for the tankers -- what's your complaint? You got what you wanted, a team at the bottom last year and so far this year. I think it's more a case of compulsive complaining and negativity, as if the team really were at the bottom for multiple years on end due to a tear-down they'd hardly be cheering it. They want a "plan" - to be horrible, so they can write all off losses as part of the genius. They don't want any accountability that their team play to win, or expectations to play well, to compete. It's way easier with no standards to live up to - just roll out the kidz and when we got enough elite handouts, then we'll start the rebuild. They want it all to be gravy - no wins, no matter, it's the "plan". We're gonna win the lottery instead. That's how ya really 'rebuild'. It's the franchise player handout plan - and if you have good people at head office, it's not a problem! It's part of the master plan. It's so in vogue that it's making a joke of the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 37 minutes ago, gameburn2 said: You bring up an important point: when does a rebuild officially start, and what is a present regime really accountable for. I say the New TML "began" in 2012-2013, but of course you are right: they had assets in place, and people to work with. Kessel was there from Burke's days. When I was in university the Leafs were owned by Ballard lol. Talk about Dark! And yet Sittler and Thompson and Palmateer weren't bad at all in those days. And Salming earlier... and then later Wendel Clark, who should have had a longer career. All those players helped the successive administrations to build. Still, the Leafs were at a relative high when they took the Bruins to 7 -- that was in 2013 I think. A good Bruins team. I saw that last game, the Leafs should have won it. Did they need a better goalie? One more player to help hold a lead... or should management have just held course? We'll never know because that team was toast in less than two full years. I suspect that one more good center and a bit more experience might have been enough. In retrospect, the Leafs took too long to break up that core; but at the time, that core was fairly young and not half bad. Not easy to break up a young core. Overall they appear to have turned over a LOT of players and have more elite young talent than we do, even leaving Matthews off the list. But did they get further along than us because they had more to work with? What I would say is that the new mgt there was willing to move players ruthlessly: Kessel and Phaneuf in particular. Our equivalents would be either the two Sedins or at least Kesler and Edler. We did move Kesler though... so we're not as lame as some think. But to move Kesler for Bonino? That's not rebuilding, that's that retooling thing they tried. (And I hope have given up on.) They did get a pick... but should have tried for all picks and no Bonino, even if one or two were in 2017 or 2018. If you look back on the commentary about the Leafs in 2013-2014 you'll see that most of the press/commentary thought that the rebuild wasn't underway until Kessel and Phaneuf were dealt. Everyone assumed it would happen and that it was necessary. For some weird reason, Vancouver's management doesn't understand what's required to rebuild. It's the stars that have to go, the assets from the previous regime who are not the youth. The Leafs kept Kadri and still have Bozak, but all the rest are gone. Kadri was young enough -- and still had untapped potential; Bozak I don't know what that's about, perhaps a contract problem. Still, if we don't peg a team's situation to a regime, I'm not sure where we can begin. 1.) I don't believe I agree that the named Canucks' players are in a similar situation. How many of these Canucks players actually got around to asking for a trade? Just one, Kesler, and there was talk/rumour of other things going on behind the scenes which instigated the request. 2.) If the other three guys (with NTC/NMC contracts) don't ask for a move, and (reportedly) rebuff requests from the team to accept a trade, then how do you trade them? This is a constant theme here, people suggesting that the team should trade Edler, but if he doesn't want to leave then how can you make him go, while still getting a decent return? The team can always put him on waivers, but outside of some "useless" cap space, how does that help the team? 3.) As to what was taken in return for Kesler, how do we know what was really asked for as opposed to what was commented on to the press? As far as we know Benning asked for something much higher, but once again, when the other guy can say "No" to your demands then you're kind of stuck, no? regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 58 minutes ago, gameburn2 said: TML Kessel Burke's Leafs Ballard Sittler Thompson Palmateer Salming Wendel Clark Leafs Leafs Leafs Kessel and Phaneuf Leafs Kessel Phaneuf Leafs Kadri Bozak . Kadri Bozak "I'm not a Leafs fan" lol. k. Tell us more about your Leafs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 1 minute ago, oldnews said: They want a "plan" - to be horrible, so they can write all off losses as part of the genius. They don't want any accountability that their team play to win, or expectations to play well, to compete. It's way easier with no standards to live up to - just roll out the kidz and when we got enough elite handouts, then we'll start the rebuild. They want it all to be gravy - no wins, no matter, it's the "plan". We're gonna win the lottery instead. That's how ya really 'rebuild'. It's the franchise player handout plan - and if you have good people at head office, it's not a problem! It's part of the master plan. It's so in vogue that it's making a joke of the NHL. Ya' know, this just might be part of why I'm drifting towards baseball. They have their issues there, but at least they're new issues to me... It is interesting that teams like the Oilers and the Leafs are said to be "re-building" only after they managed to pick up a significant prospect, which then inspired the team to spend a bit of cash and also make some trades. Prior to the McDavid or Matthews drafts those teams were just spoken of as "sucking", even with some of the good, young players on their rosters. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, Gollumpus said: Ya' know, this just might be part of why I'm drifting towards baseball. They have their issues there, but at least they're new issues to me... It is interesting that teams like the Oilers and the Leafs are said to be "re-building" only after they managed to pick up a significant prospect, which then inspired the team to spend a bit of cash and also make some trades. Prior to the McDavid or Matthews drafts those teams were just spoken of as "sucking", even with some of the good, young players on their rosters. regards, G. yeah - "tanking" simply does not work in baseball baseball has a problem with teams like the Yankees being able to spend umpteen times more money than small markets, with big spenders dominating year after year after year. They came up with a soft 'corrector' - a luxury tax - that is relatively ineffectual. But still there are many more players impacting a baseball team, and a single player or first overall pick is simply not something that is worth dictating a team's intent to suck - teams simply do not lose on purpose for draft position. As annoying as it is seeing the rich franchises win repeatedly, it's not as fundamentally lame as 'tank nations' and the intent to lose or get worse - which imo undermines the integrity of the game even more than the lack of a salary cap. Institute a salary cap in baseball and they have neither problem. The NHL needs to institute a draft lottery exemption - that no matter how bad you are, you get one top 3 pick maximum at an interval of say 3 or 5 years - or at the very least you're excluded from the top 5 after a top 3 pick the previous year. The surefire way to get this instituted - would be when the Canucks turn comes around.....the NHL will definitely see the sense in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 16 hours ago, Warhippy said: The very fact you ask this and don't consider their words vs their actions over the last 2+ seasons says enough. They've said one thing and done another. What do you think so many gripe about on here for? They say they have a plan then deviate wildly in sections. I clarified ALL of that in very short simple sentences. All we want is them to say we're doing this. Then do it. If you sell us on a retool then claim to make the playoffs, sell us on development then sit the kids over plugs, sell us on drafting then trade picks. Then you are not sticking to your plan. What actions specifically? I thought I clarified everything in my more specific reply. Every move has been to get younger (rebuild on the fly) or ufa's to try and stay competitive (for playoff spot). I really don't see what's confusing you. Every move he's made has made sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryCanuck Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 On 22 November 2016 at 4:29 AM, combover said: If the shoe fits. You think he believes what he's saying, that likes gillis saying he wanted torts.its laughable. i think linden really wants to make this team a winner but his hand are tied so yeah that's a puppet. He was a pr move to divert attention from the horrendous ownership when he was hired. I feel bad for him a dream job turning into a nightmare because he, like benning is forced to sell bs to the fans and then place unrealistic expectation on this group of coaches and players. I appreciate that you disagree with and defend him and like everyone on here (still) it shows you care about this team just as I do but I feel like I've seen this movie and it's doesn't have a happy ending. I'm hoping you appreciate that ownership pay Linden's salary. They are are attempting to keep the Canucks core young and bring in younger "vets" sub 25 yo, in an attempt to rebuild on the fly. Based on what is available on the market. IMO I'd much rather have a 6'5 defenceman in Gudbranson with NHL experience than a 20 yo McCann who is yet to establish himself. JB picked up Granlund over Shinkaruk, where is Shinkaruk now? Would McCann have called out Martin? That is leadership. Relying on in drafting inside the top 10 under a draft lottery system, is not as easy as many believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 24 minutes ago, oldnews said: yeah - "tanking" simply does not work in baseball baseball has a problem with teams like the Yankees being able to spend umpteen times more money than small markets, with big spenders dominating year after year after year. They came up with a soft 'corrector' - a luxury tax - that is relatively ineffectual. But still there are many more players impacting a baseball team, and a single player or first overall pick is simply not something that is worth dictating a team's intent to suck - teams simply do not lose on purpose for draft position. As annoying as it is seeing the rich franchises win repeatedly, it's not as fundamentally lame as 'tank nations' and the intent to lose or get worse - which imo undermines the integrity of the game even more than the lack of a salary cap. Institute a salary cap in baseball and they have neither problem. The NHL needs to institute a draft lottery exemption - that no matter how bad you are, you get one top 3 pick maximum at an interval of say 3 or 5 years - or at the very least you're excluded from the top 5 after a top 3 pick the previous year. The surefire way to get this instituted - would be when the Canucks turn comes around.....the NHL will definitely see the sense in it. Yeah, a couple of things stand out for me with regard to baseball and spending/revenues. As you mentioned, the larger markets just have that much more to work with in the way of money. I recall a couple of play-by-play guys calling a Yankees game and they announced that the Yankees had just agreed to a deal for the following season's local TV rights to their games - they were getting $70 million. This was back in the early 70's, and they possibly could have signed their entire MLB roster, and their Triple-A, Double-A and Single-A teams with lots left over from that $70 million. And then there was the national TV money, radio revenues, advertising, ticket sales, etc. KA-CHING! Another thing that MLB teams can do is what the Marlins did way back when: '97 and '03, where they went all out on money and bought up all the UFA's so as to make a run at a World Serious title (Walt Kelly influence there), and then the following off season the team traded all of those guys/big contracts away. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 On 22/11/2016 at 3:59 PM, DeNiro said: The only thing I worry about with their plan is that it won't buy Benning enough time to rebuild through the draft. I don't wanna see us lose him because I think he has a great scouting ability. But the shelf life of a GM isn't typically more than 5 years. So he has 2 years left after this season in theory if we don't see results. The thing is year 5 is the one? I agree. (Something more or less like that was inferred?) On opening day 2018 / 2019 > We should have all our top prospects for the first time! DEMKO, Boeser, Tryamkin, Juolevi, Jake, Stecher, Brisbois, maybe Liljegren or my home town boy Patrick? Who knows what the draft holds June 2018... Hopefully Subban, Gaudette, Labate, Lockwood, Zhuk, etc. It might be, I hope not, our first without Danny & Hank? I'd love to have them see us through. Chris Tanev will be 28. Eric Gudbranson 26. Ben Hutton will be only 25. Brandon Sutter will still be short of 30. Bo Frackin Horvat will be JUST 23! What is bad, is much of the best of our future has not arrived here yet. Some dark days don't really represent what is going. I want to see current management see it through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.