Linden: We're building a new core group and will stick to plan (TSN1040) (Nov 21)

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, CanucksJay said:

You say a lot of words but they don't mean anything. Are the canucks rebuilding or retooling? 

Believe it or not, they do mean different things. I just want an honest answer. Do you know which path they are taking? 

They're not taking a path.

This isn't a hike in a rainforest.

 

[SaintPatrick33]

I said at the beginning of Linden's tenure that it takes a solid 5 year plan. Not going so well right now, but who knows what can happen in the next few years. Happy with how our D has improved, just lack excitement at the forward spot. 

[Nuxfanabroad]

3 hours ago, oldnews said:

 

I think the three of them deserve a lot of credit for what they've done to suit the circumstances.

 

I mean throw out the short term results - because while I judge them and expect the team to remain relatively competitive, the whole crowd that thinks the current group sucks really doesn't have grounds to expect superior results - these struggles for them are just the reality of the team.

 

Now - context.

 

They have a pair of (becoming former) franchise players that have constituted their top line for the better part of a decade - and while they may no longer be a premier top line in the NHL, they're still serviceable and are the identity of the franchise.

So, in two senses, the last thing the team needs to accomplish is replacing the Sedins.  That may have become the first order of business in the present, but that would be testimony to what these three have accomplished in two years.

 

The other fundamental part of the context imo - the contending years produced a gap, a demographic gap between the past and the emerging core - and in addition, by virtue of perenial late picks, challenged the team to manage an unrealistic Detroitesque continuity despite that fact - but at the very least, do their best to emulate the powerhouse results of the master perenial retoolers of the NHL.

 

Filling that generational core gap is fundamentally an 'unrealistic' challenge.   People can make fun of the idea that players like Sutter or Gudbranson are 'core' or foundational players, but barring dealing their absolute best young assets to top picks to acquire current NHL proven core/foundational players, the team literally has to pull a few rabbits out of their hat.  Well, the continuing returns/progression of the Kesler deal imo is not that far off.

 

Has the team been "rebuilding"?  Whatever.  I couldn't care less about cookie cutters or semantics.   Gillis brought two (imo) core pieces back in preliminary rebuild/retool deals in Horvat and Markstrom.  Benning has kept all his high picks and the bulk of the rest of them as well - and he's added another group of potential core pieces - Demko, Boeser, Tryamkin, Virtanen, etc through the draft.  Has he dwelled on stockplling every future? No, of course not - he needed to come up with something to come between the 30-35 yr old core and the 20 yr old next ones.   So he did his best there and imo, not such a bad job considering what he really spent - Kesler, Bieksa, Garrison....I'll take what's been managed with the returns.

 

The other aspects of the rebuiltool imo also make perfect sense.

You dont' built a house from the top down, with a bunch of top floor skilled forwards at the top, and a foundation lagging behind, particularly when you're never going to have those 1st overalls to be spoon fed generational talents.

 

So, two reasons to build from the back forward.

1)  It takes longer to develop goaltenders and defensemen and they're a lesser certainty regardless.

2)  You already have an existing core of skilled forwards in the transition, and in additiion, it's easier to plug young forwards into key productive roles and be competitive than it is to do so on your back end.

 

So all in all, we have a progression plan that starts from the back and looks like:

 

The transitional core pieces to give way - Sedins, Edler, MIller (no assets) with (hopefully) a few that will remain - Honey Badger, Eriksson...

A few transitional secondary pieces to give way - Burrows, Dorsett, Sbisa (tbh I'd have no real problem with Sbisa transitioning into a future fixture if he continues to progress as he has and we deal someone else to fill a need - but regardless, the third piece of the Kesler deal - not so bad).

 

Markstrom Demko

Juolevi Gudbranson Tryamkin Tanev Hutton Stecher + relatively unknown quantities in the prospect pool

Horvat, Sutter, Boeser, Granlund, Virtanen, Baertschi? + unkonwn quantities [+ Hansen, Eriksson]

 

Are there a few pieces that the team needs to add - of course there are.

Do we have a few unknown quantities that could be far more than we expect (ala Tryamkin, Hutton, Stecher) in our incubating forward group?  Who knows - Lockwood, Zhukenov, whomever - maybe one or two of these guys become solid top 9 forwards  - the next Burrows or Hansen etc.

 

But is the "plan" really so difficult to conceive?

And is/was the alternative - dealing the Sedins - really that realistic?  Or even attractive.  Myself - I'd rather they be the lifers than retool chips, for a number of reasons.

 

Does the team need an elite forward or two in the near future?  Probably, maybe, who knows, but likely.  However, is it so unrealistic that Benning come up with that?

He has his 1sts.  He has a couple 2nds this year.  He has the potential to deal a defenseman to either bring in a current forward, or add some futures that could increase the possibility of drafting one.

 

Aside from the current, short term results - which the most vocal protesters would sacrifice in any event in order to "rebuild" - is there really the grounds for the doom and gloom?

 

We may not have forwards like the Coil or other tankers - but what about the equally important back end?  How do the Canucks fare there - and what part of the rest would people rather be faced with completing.

 

I personally am perfectly content with the form and content of what these three - Lindenningardins - have accomplished in two years.

They also have 10 million in expiring veterans next summer - in positions that they're fairly healthy in succession.

People have complained a lot about Benning's contracts, and yet where is the lack of health in terms of their future flexibility?

 

I don't know.  Can someone explain how they should have done so much better?

What I hear is stuff like 'stop acquiring 'old' players - essentially Sutter, Gudbranson, Granlund etc - because that makes no sense to me unless we're looking to collapse in between generations/cores.  I think the team has more self-respect and respect for the Sedins to do that.

I also hear the idea of stockpiling every future possible - but wadr - are we all that much better off with another pick as opposed to Hansen for example?

Aside from that, I hear some hindsight dreamers that thought water should have been drawn from stones like Vrbata et al - or an injured Hamhuis, or an injured Higgins, etc.

A few losses, yes - Kass, Vey/Garrison,(I'd say the 5th/Forsling/Clendening, but they converted Clendening into value on Sutter that is hard to argue with) - but you simply cannot make the volume of moves necessary without taking some losses.  It's like the game itself - you win some, you lose some, but where the rebuild/tool goes, I'd say they're doing pretty well with some ways to go, but probably better prospect of adding to their futures as opposed to having to spend (albeit relatively marginal ones) moving forward.

 

I've been very impressed with this teams' amateur and pro scouting in the past two years - I see no reason they can't finish the top floor.

Bang-on here. One of the better posts I've seen for some time.

[coolboarder]

Defence and goalie take longer to develop and is years away from being ready while the forwards is more easier to find as there are many players that have talent to score but defence is harder to develop into a 1995 NJ Devils.  The Devils had Stevens and Broduer as their example of building from ground up.  I remember early 90's, Devils sucked but they transformed into a cup winner and it didn't last long.  Benning's strategy on drafting of those needs were his earliest plan to build from ground up, rather than top down (forward to goalies).  His drafting on Demko shows me that he sees that the goalies needs time to develop and drafting Tryamkin is also the sign of building the team from the ground.  His latest pick, OJ is another example of that, taking time to build from the ground and he will start to focus on more scoring talents and more defence.  

 

His drafting forward has essentially became a trade chip for some more defenceman.  If you wanted to get a better defence, you'd have to give away your forward like McCann to get a better defence.   Also, I'm pretty sure that Benning knew that Virtanen wasn't ready in the draft year and is not ready now and takes longer to develop into a power forward, hence the reason on drafting earliest.  If Nylander, or Ehler were to be drafted and playing for the Canucks, they won't be able to do what they are doing with other teams because the way Willie Desjardin is treating them like they are not ready.   Even if they could score with this version of Canucks, there are no defence to stop them.  They were a trainwreck last year and this year, some major improvement this year but still they had some older D in Edler and three rookies on this corps.    I remember in 90's Canucks, they had forwards and could score at will with Bure at helm but they didn't have their #1 D to keep the score down and be a serious cup contender for a few more years.   If OJ is ready in next few years, they are more set up and ready to step up and be a shutdown D with some offensive flair in Stecher, Tryamkin and OJ.    

 

Benning next focus will be forward and to store up defence a little bit more in next two drafts.    If this year's draft's depth is not good as they say and defensive prospect pool is better than forward in this draft depth then Benning will focus on defence and focus more on forward the year after.   It all depends if the Canucks win the lottery, and if not, I'm sure he will focus on defence and more bottom 6 potential forward in the draft unless he finds a hidden gem on latter round.   If 2018 draft has a lot of forward depth then he will focus on that depth rather than defence and forward tend to develop faster and projected to be ready around 2021-22 after +2 draft and a little AHL time.   You'd want to project that year, 2021-22 to where every aspect of defence and forward to be ready to contribute to this team and be a cup contender if we still have Horvat, Boeser, Lockwood, Virtanen, Eriksson, and 2018 draftee as their top 6 is the best we could have hoped for unless we win in 2017 draft with 1 or 2  defenceman picks panned out from that draft in 2021-22 season.   in 2019 draft, I'd focus on more forward and a goalie to replace Markstrom asap in future cup window to back up Demko if Demko ever develop as an all-star goalie. 

[Moonshinefe]

I still have faith in Linden and his passion for making Vancouver a winning team. It's just hard, given we didn't go into full rebuild mode 2-3 seasons sooner and now are in a bit of a limbo.

 

I think we're a solid 1 season into (at least partial) rebuild now, if we get some top 10 draft picks in 2-3 of the next seasons you never know what can happen. I think this trying to make a wildcard position is nonsense at this point. A lot of it too is just getting lucky with draft picks, some teams get point per game players out of seemingly nowhere, while some other team will draft 3-4 guys in a row that barely make an impact on the NHL.

[Honky Cat]

4 hours ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

Good read. 

Certainly, our d core is looking promising.  Marky has looked like a starter at times but the jury is still out on him and Demko is a ways off.  Up front, Jb has his work cut out for him.  We do have some promising youth coming up but no guarantees at all.  Watching the talent level of  Edmonton, Chicago, even Calgary's kids and Toronto's kids etc. our offense is severely lacking. WE just have nobody (except maybe Bo) who can control play and drive the opportunities.  Systems are great but we really need to add some dynamic up-front talent if we are truly gong to compete in this league.

No quick fix there which is why I was not overly excited with trying to fill that gap with Kane which to me seemed like a high gamble and a somewhat desperate option.

 

What also concerns me, is that some of the moves don't appear consistent with moving the team in the direction you outline.  JB's comments about the goal being to make the playoffs along with signings like LE,  give the impression that management is willing to pay a long-term price (fewer picks/prospects) to support the old core in winning now.  

 

My biggest frustration is with WD.  I just can't figure out his approach to personnel.  Even the Sedins have said they are puzzled by some of his moves.

 

Oh well...I'll keep watching, hoping and most likely ranting as we go through this phase.  I just hope I live to see the rebuilt product. I've been a Nucks fan since the beginning and there have been far too few high points and far too many droughts. I really hope decisions/mistakes are not being made that will delay or jeopardise turning this ship around.

 

+1..I don't get it either...

[spook007]

8 hours ago, Odd. said:

http://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040-i-1410/linden-we-re-building-a-new-core-group-and-will-stick-to-plan-1.613671

 

 

To summarize the Linden interview:

 

-Says he's proud of our group for giving to the community and that they are absolutely great off the ice. Mentions Bo as an example.

-Talked briefly about people being involved just in hockey in general

-Likes certain parts of the group. Knows that there are problems with this team and needs certain players to step up.

-Talks about leadership and character and praises the leaders (mentions Bo again)

-The "plan".. knows that there's been some obstacles and challenges but not diverting from the plan

-Wants to improve the prospect list, wants to add young players, knows that people want this to be a fast process but that doesn't affect any of his decisions

-They touched briefly on Jake Virtanen. Wanted Virtanen to take the next step but knows he's just a 20 year old kid, not all players jump up into the league and produce at 20

-Also says you can't compare maturity of one player to another. Linden knows Virtanen still hasn't quite matured like Horvat has but doesn't want people to compare every single player to Horvat because players mature differently. 

-Green is going to work with Virtanen closely down in Utica

-Linden knows that his job is challenging, knows that there are going to be people questioning some moves of his down the road, but loves the organization and loves working with his peers. Also very excited for the future.

-Calls rumors of meddling ownership ridiculous

Thanks for sharing bud.

[alfstonker]

7 hours ago, bobbyg43 said:

Oh well valid point and rational.

now if next year could be here tomorrow.

 

You guys don't get it.

 

All this is part of what makes our eventual morphing into a contender so fulfilling. These days of struggle with glimpses of the team we are becoming, shouldn't be wished away they should be enjoyed imo for what they are - an intriguing insight into the challenges that face a team in our position.

 

Watching every game like it was our last enthrals me. We are seeing our next core struggle into the light on a nightly basis and the slow demise of our old core. This all takes time and imo if you are not enjoying the positives then you are just wishing your life away and ultimately will find it harder and harder to be satisfied with the end result you will never be satisfied.

 

I know for a fact many don't even watch the complete games and yet it doesn't stop them cranking up their laptops the next day to complain about this player or that, often of course without realising their own favourite untouchable had a night to forget. That's not being a fan in my book, that's just a bandwaggoner who got off probably 4 years ago and possibly complained as much then as they do now but at least then there was a chance they watched a whole game now and then.

 

Here's a Newsflash!

THIS IS HOCKEY -  it is for half the league and if you are going to turn your back on the team and do nothing but resign yourself to whining on here every day and wishing away season after season and only looking forward to the draft (where again you are likely to feel disappointed ) you may as well give up watching the game.

 

All this is not directed directly at you bobby it was just brought on by your last sentence. 

[alfstonker]

2 hours ago, coolboarder said:

Defence and goalie take longer to develop and is years away from being ready while the forwards is more easier to find as there are many players that have talent to score but defence is harder to develop into a 1995 NJ Devils.  The Devils had Stevens and Broduer as their example of building from ground up.  I remember early 90's, Devils sucked but they transformed into a cup winner and it didn't last long.  Benning's strategy on drafting of those needs were his earliest plan to build from ground up, rather than top down (forward to goalies).  His drafting on Demko shows me that he sees that the goalies needs time to develop and drafting Tryamkin is also the sign of building the team from the ground.  His latest pick, OJ is another example of that, taking time to build from the ground and he will start to focus on more scoring talents and more defence.  

 

His drafting forward has essentially became a trade chip for some more defenceman.  If you wanted to get a better defence, you'd have to give away your forward like McCann to get a better defence.   Also, I'm pretty sure that Benning knew that Virtanen wasn't ready in the draft year and is not ready now and takes longer to develop into a power forward, hence the reason on drafting earliest.  If Nylander, or Ehler were to be drafted and playing for the Canucks, they won't be able to do what they are doing with other teams because the way Willie Desjardin is treating them like they are not ready.   Even if they could score with this version of Canucks, there are no defence to stop them.  They were a trainwreck last year and this year, some major improvement this year but still they had some older D in Edler and three rookies on this corps.    I remember in 90's Canucks, they had forwards and could score at will with Bure at helm but they didn't have their #1 D to keep the score down and be a serious cup contender for a few more years.   If OJ is ready in next few years, they are more set up and ready to step up and be a shutdown D with some offensive flair in Stecher, Tryamkin and OJ.    

 

Benning next focus will be forward and to store up defence a little bit more in next two drafts.    If this year's draft's depth is not good as they say and defensive prospect pool is better than forward in this draft depth then Benning will focus on defence and focus more on forward the year after.   It all depends if the Canucks win the lottery, and if not, I'm sure he will focus on defence and more bottom 6 potential forward in the draft unless he finds a hidden gem on latter round.   If 2018 draft has a lot of forward depth then he will focus on that depth rather than defence and forward tend to develop faster and projected to be ready around 2021-22 after +2 draft and a little AHL time.   You'd want to project that year, 2021-22 to where every aspect of defence and forward to be ready to contribute to this team and be a cup contender if we still have Horvat, Boeser, Lockwood, Virtanen, Eriksson, and 2018 draftee as their top 6 is the best we could have hoped for unless we win in 2017 draft with 1 or 2  defenceman picks panned out from that draft in 2021-22 season.   in 2019 draft, I'd focus on more forward and a goalie to replace Markstrom asap in future cup window to back up Demko if Demko ever develop as an all-star goalie. 

 

Honestly, that is utter garbage. Can you in any way substantiate that ludicrous statement?

We don't/didn't have a Nylander here - by that I mean a player whose reading of the game is off the charts, sublime passing and ability to raise the game of his line mates.

 

Our rookie forwards WERE NOT READY and no amount of hating on the coach changes that. 

[Drakrami]

7 hours ago, Beary Sweet said:

It's nice to see that Linden has a plan for the team. I can kind of vision what the team will be like in a couple years when we have Juolevi, Boeser, Lockwood, Gaudette and other young guns in the lineup. Once they get settled into the lineup when they get here,  the team will start to sell out games again. A rebuild doesn't happen overnight. Willing to wait it out alongside Linden to see how it goes

nice plan.

just signed Eriksson to a 6x6 contract a few months ago.

Those prospects you named, other teams have similar prospects in their depth chart, if not better quality ones. So nothing really special there. Its called the draft, and every team gets nice prospects from it every year.

[SaintPatrick33]

Hello Mr. Linden, 

 

I just want more draft picks for JB, by that I mean stockpile more than the customary 7 picks......which means more chances for JB to steal some more gems. 

 

My only regret is that we could have traded some assets for picks. I could care less about signing FA, we have lots more cap dollars coming off soon anyways. 

 

I also request that you and JB stay at minimum 5 years to complete your plan. 

 

Apparently you read CDC or listen to 1040 after losses, because you answered some tough questions with honesty and class. 

 

Thank you for reading Trev, may the hockey gods be with you, and may Tanbeer from Surrey be your greatest nemesis. 

[SaintPatrick33]

1 hour ago, alfstonker said:

 

You guys don't get it.

 

All this is part of what makes our eventual morphing into a contender so fulfilling. These days of struggle with glimpses of the team we are becoming, shouldn't be wished away they should be enjoyed imo for what they are - an intriguing insight into the challenges that face a team in our position.

 

Watching every game like it was our last enthrals me. We are seeing our next core struggle into the light on a nightly basis and the slow demise of our old core. This all takes time and imo if you are not enjoying the positives then you are just wishing your life away and ultimately will find it harder and harder to be satisfied with the end result you will never be satisfied.

 

I know for a fact many don't even watch the complete games and yet it doesn't stop them cranking up their laptops the next day to complain about this player or that, often of course without realising their own favourite untouchable had a night to forget. That's not being a fan in my book, that's just a bandwaggoner who got off probably 4 years ago and possibly complained as much then as they do now but at least then there was a chance they watched a whole game now and then.

 

Here's a Newsflash!

THIS IS HOCKEY -  it is for half the league and if you are going to turn your back on the team and do nothing but resign yourself to whining on here every day and wishing away season after season and only looking forward to the draft (where again you are likely to feel disappointed ) you may as well give up watching the game.

 

All this is not directed directly at you bobby it was just brought on by your last sentence. 

 

Sometimes you can be angry, and other times you nearly bring me to tears. Some beauty verbiage going on here, well stated my friend. 

[Baggins]

8 hours ago, Warhippy said:

But...wtf IS the plan?

 

We're going to get younger, trade youth and picks for older players

We're going to develop, trades prospects for NHL journeymen and vets

We're going to stockpile picks and prospects, lets assets walk and trades picks prospects

We're going to compete for the playoffs....

 

Thanks for the update Linden.  But we kind of need to know what the actual plan is instead of this bi-polar flavour of the day depending on our win loss column.

 

I've never once heard them say "stockpile picks". The plan has been clear and every move beaten to death. You either get or you don't.

 

Vey - draft pick for NHL ready prospect

Baertschi - draft pick for NHL ready prospect

Sutter/Bonino - veteran entering prime, upgrade on Bonino

Kassian/Prust - problem child nobody wanted for useful overpaid player

McCann/Gudbranson - decent prospect for young experienced top 4 d-man

Shinkaruk/Granlund - project prospect for NHL ready prospect

Matthias/Richardson - playoff team, neither buyers or sellers

Hamhius/Vrbata - NTC limited options, no deals to be made other than a bogus Dallas offer

 

So what's confusing you?

[appleboy]

People who keep asking what the plan is are not paying attention. They are transitioning from an old team to a young team. You need to have something to put on the ice. They can't say that losing is their plan so they say they want to be competitive. You don't want your youth to give up before they start so you try to surround them with some veterans. (Oilers mistake)

They keep saying that any deals need to be about the future. They have had said that they will not move their top prospects and Linden is saying that they need to improve their prospect depth.

 

Everything else is just propaganda spread to calm the masses.

They are in a rebuild no matter what anyone says.

 

[Baggins]

9 hours ago, Incursio said:

Too many other people have said otherwise for me to believe him.

 

You mean guys like Mackenzie etc speculating (outsiders) because they don't understand why we're rebuilding the way we are? People will believe what they want. i believe Aquaman has his finger on the pulse, I would with this kind of investment as well, but certainly not using Linden/Benning as puppets. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the type of rebuild he wanted, and hired the guys that would buy in and do it. Even if that's the case he wouldn't have to run roughshod over them. I doubt Linden or Benning run much by him other than the biggest of deals.

[Stelar]

8 hours ago, oldnews said:

 

I think the three of them deserve a lot of credit for what they've done to suit the circumstances.

 

I mean throw out the short term results - because while I judge them and expect the team to remain relatively competitive, the whole crowd that thinks the current group sucks really doesn't have grounds to expect superior results - these struggles for them are just the reality of the team.

 

Now - context.

 

They have a pair of (becoming former) franchise players that have constituted their top line for the better part of a decade - and while they may no longer be a premier top line in the NHL, they're still serviceable and are the identity of the franchise.

So, in two senses, the last thing the team needs to accomplish is replacing the Sedins.  That may have become the first order of business in the present, but that would be testimony to what these three have accomplished in two years.

 

The other fundamental part of the context imo - the contending years produced a gap, a demographic gap between the past and the emerging core - and in addition, by virtue of perenial late picks, challenged the team to manage an unrealistic Detroitesque continuity despite that fact - but at the very least, do their best to emulate the powerhouse results of the master perenial retoolers of the NHL.

 

Filling that generational core gap is fundamentally an 'unrealistic' challenge.   People can make fun of the idea that players like Sutter or Gudbranson are 'core' or foundational players, but barring dealing their absolute best young assets to top picks to acquire current NHL proven core/foundational players, the team literally has to pull a few rabbits out of their hat.  Well, the continuing returns/progression of the Kesler deal imo is not that far off.

 

Has the team been "rebuilding"?  Whatever.  I couldn't care less about cookie cutters or semantics.   Gillis brought two (imo) core pieces back in preliminary rebuild/retool deals in Horvat and Markstrom.  Benning has kept all his high picks and the bulk of the rest of them as well - and he's added another group of potential core pieces - Demko, Boeser, Tryamkin, Virtanen, etc through the draft.  Has he dwelled on stockplling every future? No, of course not - he needed to come up with something to come between the 30-35 yr old core and the 20 yr old next ones.   So he did his best there and imo, not such a bad job considering what he really spent - Kesler, Bieksa, Garrison....I'll take what's been managed with the returns.

 

The other aspects of the rebuiltool imo also make perfect sense.

You dont' built a house from the top down, with a bunch of top floor skilled forwards at the top, and a foundation lagging behind, particularly when you're never going to have those 1st overalls to be spoon fed generational talents.

 

So, two reasons to build from the back forward.

1)  It takes longer to develop goaltenders and defensemen and they're a lesser certainty regardless.

2)  You already have an existing core of skilled forwards in the transition, and in additiion, it's easier to plug young forwards into key productive roles and be competitive than it is to do so on your back end.

 

So all in all, we have a progression plan that starts from the back and looks like:

 

The transitional core pieces to give way - Sedins, Edler, MIller (no assets) with (hopefully) a few that will remain - Honey Badger, Eriksson...

A few transitional secondary pieces to give way - Burrows, Dorsett, Sbisa (tbh I'd have no real problem with Sbisa transitioning into a future fixture if he continues to progress as he has and we deal someone else to fill a need - but regardless, the third piece of the Kesler deal - not so bad).

 

Markstrom Demko

Juolevi Gudbranson Tryamkin Tanev Hutton Stecher + relatively unknown quantities in the prospect pool

Horvat, Sutter, Boeser, Granlund, Virtanen, Baertschi? + unkonwn quantities [+ Hansen, Eriksson]

 

Are there a few pieces that the team needs to add - of course there are.

Do we have a few unknown quantities that could be far more than we expect (ala Tryamkin, Hutton, Stecher) in our incubating forward group?  Who knows - Lockwood, Zhukenov, whomever - maybe one or two of these guys become solid top 9 forwards  - the next Burrows or Hansen etc.

 

But is the "plan" really so difficult to conceive?

And is/was the alternative - dealing the Sedins - really that realistic?  Or even attractive.  Myself - I'd rather they be the lifers than retool chips, for a number of reasons.

 

Does the team need an elite forward or two in the near future?  Probably, maybe, who knows, but likely.  However, is it so unrealistic that Benning come up with that?

He has his 1sts.  He has a couple 2nds this year.  He has the potential to deal a defenseman to either bring in a current forward, or add some futures that could increase the possibility of drafting one.

 

Aside from the current, short term results - which the most vocal protesters would sacrifice in any event in order to "rebuild" - is there really the grounds for the doom and gloom?

 

We may not have forwards like the Coil or other tankers - but what about the equally important back end?  How do the Canucks fare there - and what part of the rest would people rather be faced with completing.

 

I personally am perfectly content with the form and content of what these three - Lindenningardins - have accomplished in two years.

They also have 10 million in expiring veterans next summer - in positions that they're fairly healthy in succession.

People have complained a lot about Benning's contracts, and yet where is the lack of health in terms of their future flexibility?

 

I don't know.  Can someone explain how they should have done so much better?

What I hear is stuff like 'stop acquiring 'old' players - essentially Sutter, Gudbranson, Granlund etc - because that makes no sense to me unless we're looking to collapse in between generations/cores.  I think the team has more self-respect and respect for the Sedins to do that.

I also hear the idea of stockpiling every future possible - but wadr - are we all that much better off with another pick as opposed to Hansen for example?

Aside from that, I hear some hindsight dreamers that thought water should have been drawn from stones like Vrbata et al - or an injured Hamhuis, or an injured Higgins, etc.

A few losses, yes - Kass, Vey/Garrison,(I'd say the 5th/Forsling/Clendening, but they converted Clendening into value on Sutter that is hard to argue with) - but you simply cannot make the volume of moves necessary without taking some losses.  It's like the game itself - you win some, you lose some, but where the rebuild/tool goes, I'd say they're doing pretty well with some ways to go, but probably better prospect of adding to their futures as opposed to having to spend (albeit relatively marginal ones) moving forward.

 

I've been very impressed with this teams' amateur and pro scouting in the past two years - I see no reason they can't finish the top floor.

 

Great post. You can spell out "the plan" as plain as day on here but some refuse to believe there is a plan because they favor the tank....  Its just that simple. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Stelar said:

 

Great post. You can spell out "the plan" as plain as day on here but some refuse to believe there is a plan because they favor the tank....  Its just that simple. 

Where are we drafting though?  It's like a non-intentional tank, no?  

[Stelar]

9 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Where are we drafting though?  It's like a non-intentional tank, no?  

I have no expectations of being competitive during this 5 year "plan". 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Stelar said:

I have no expectations of being competitive during this 3-5 year "plan". 

We need to get lucky at that stupidly rigged draft lotto.  

[Stelar]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

We need to get lucky at that stupidly rigged draft lotto.  

Canucks will never get "lucky". The two just don't go together.