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

[stuman491]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

I'd echo this.

 

But it's been proven the amount of picks going out vs coming in is almost a wash albeit in different rounds.

 

But if the plan is to allow Benning the talent evaluator to work his magic...we kind of need those picks moving forward.  Hoping we see a scenario where we see the team accumulate picks instead of possibly switching them over the next 2 seasons.

 

I'd like to see what Benning can do with say 9-11 picks in the draft in consecutive seasons.  he seems to have done well so far in the mid to later rounds.

I've got to admit this would be nice.  I've understood most of the reasoning for his moves so far, but since he seems to do his best work in the draft it would be nice to give him more picks to use.  Our farm system would be replenished after two drafts with 9-11 picks.  It would go a long way giving us organizational depth.

[Tiger-Hearted]

13 hours ago, Odd. said:

-Calls rumors of meddling ownership ridiculous

 

13 hours ago, Incursio said:

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

The Aquilinis, especially Francesco, can take a page from the World Series Champion Chicago Cubs and their top-notch ownership.

 

[D-Money]

The plan was to remain competitive and try to make the playoffs...but the plan has obviously failed.

 

The plan was to flip Hamhuis and/or Vrbata last year for extra pick(s)/prospect(s), but that failed too.

 

And the plan was to flip "depth" picks/prospects for young players who had shown flashes of brilliance, but for whatever reason had their development stalled, in the hopes to find a quality young NHL-er or two. Two 2nds, a 3rd, and Forsling were turned into Vey, Baertschi, Pedan, and Clendening. Overall, this has to be seen as a failure as well.

 

It's not that the plans seemed bad to begin with, it's just that the results indicate they were not executed properly. The reasons (read: excuses) presented ("Dallas preferred another player", "Vrbata gave a bogus list because he didn't want to move", "Clendening was a valuable piece that helped us land Sutter", "Sedins and Eriksson had so much chemistry internationally"...etc.) each sound reasonable on their own, but if you take a step back you see a clear pattern of failures and excuses.

 

However, that said, there is one thing that has happened that has been a resounding success: drafting. And that is the most important thing for our franchise now. So despite his failures, Benning should stay. But he needs to stop trading picks and focus on the draft for a couple of years. Then when it's time to switch gears and make some trades/signings to turn a young team into a competitor, perhaps we can hire a more suitable replacement.

 

Perhaps that will be Benning's M.O. going forward - he'll be the new Dale Tallon. The kind of guy who can draft and build a quality young team, but who makes too many gaffes (the Chicago RFA QO debacle, the Dave Bolland FA contract, etc.) to be trusted with taking it to the next step.

[on the cycle]

Plan? There's a plan? What plan is this?This is a terrible plan. There needs to be a better plan. It's a process plan is better than this plan. This is the real bad real good plan.

[Warhippy]

14 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.

 

29 minutes ago, 6YPE said:

 

 

Please clarify this statement... I've heard we are building from the net out and I think they've done a decent job, next if forwards... thats what I think the plan is

There ya go.

[Warhippy]

22 minutes ago, stuman491 said:

I've got to admit this would be nice.  I've understood most of the reasoning for his moves so far, but since he seems to do his best work in the draft it would be nice to give him more picks to use.  Our farm system would be replenished after two drafts with 9-11 picks.  It would go a long way giving us organizational depth.

I just want to see what benning can do with a full deck +

 

I've been pretty hard on him for his drafting but the reality is in his career he's made a habit of finding gems outside of the first 2 rounds.

 

Would be nice to see if he could do the same here with more than simply 6 or 7 picks

[aGENT]

11 hours ago, NHTyrany said:

Agree although I'm still pissed we decided to win some games at the tail end of a huge deep draft year. Just look at Laine and Mathews. One could have easily been in a nucks jersey but some suggest it would have been bad habit for the team to take a few xtra nights off while on the road. I guess we can say we did it the honest way...

 

The team that drafted Laine actually finished higher in the standings than us. So much for your brilliant plan

 

1 hour ago, SaintPatrick33 said:

 

Perhaps this is the issue, not sure which players we have right now that can be turned into round 3 and higher draft picks. Do you see a future sell-off coming? Where would we be able to stockpile draft picks, because I think that time has come and gone

 

Really that time is just coming IMO. Selling Hammer would have been nice but the NTC handcuffed us. But moving forward we have Miller, Burrows, Tanev, Edler, Hansen and perhaps even the Sedins to sell as well as smaller pieces like possibly Sbisa, Dorsett etc. As well as...

 

23 minutes ago, stuman491 said:

I've got to admit this would be nice.  I've understood most of the reasoning for his moves so far, but since he seems to do his best work in the draft it would be nice to give him more picks to use.  Our farm system would be replenished after two drafts with 9-11 picks.  It would go a long way giving us organizational depth.

 

Benning flat out stated that now that he's largely filled the age gap he plans to retain and add far more picks moving forward. Give him some time.

[6YPE]

9 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

 

There ya go.

 

That didnt really clarify anything, but whatever works for you  

[Team Bagues]

Did anyone watch HNIC this past Saturday? They talked about our young D, and listed the ages. Pretty much all young.

Plan is moving forward, in order of:

1) Goaltending. - done... never really a problem but Gillis tried hard to make it one.

2) Defence - done, with room to improve, but much better.

3) Forwards.

We are now moving to get younger up front.

Patience in this digital age of entitlement is lacking.

[Gaudette Celly]

14 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.

 

Two+ years in and explained over and over ad nauseum... but at least 24 people still can't figure it out.  Big pictures apparently are not visible to those with narrow opaque blinders.

[Team Bagues]

12 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.

Well said oldnews.

Though I'm not sure the ADHD crowd will be able to follow along or put the effort in to read and actually think about your post.

[Stelar]

3 hours ago, Pete M said:

LE  signing is inconsistent and baffling...old and past his prime...not good for the rebuild. No reason to question him about it because it's all b.s.

Once again someone who doesn't understand what they are trying to do.  We can all debate later if LE was the right fit but they brought in a 31 year old 30 goal scorer to surround the younger kids with a veteran presence so they don't get $&!# kicked every night like the Oilers did/do.....

 

How is this concept so hard for some to understand?

[JM_]

1 minute ago, Stelar said:

Once again someone who doesn't understand what they are trying to do.  We can all debate later if LE was the right fit but they brought in a 31 year old 30 goal scorer to surround the younger kids with a veteran presence so they don't get $&!# kicked every night like the Oilers did/do.....

 

How is this concept so hard for some to understand?

 

Lucic with McDavid. Now does it make sense?

[stuman491]

11 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

Benning flat out stated that now that he's largely filled the age gap he plans to retain and add far more picks moving forward. Give him some time.

I sure hope that's the case!  Too bad this draft isn't as deep as past year, but I think JB will be able to find a few diamonds in the rough.  And if he manages to get some extra picks then he can swing for the fences on a few picks

[Stelar]

6 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

 

Lucic with McDavid. Now does it make sense?

it made sense to me already but thanks....

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I’m a big JB fan and I’m happy with most of his moves and I like where the bigger picture is heading. But I can’t sit here and defend every move that has been made.

 

Kassian + pick turned into nothing

Jensen + pick turned into nothing

Pick for Vey turned into nothing

If Pedan would have got claimed that would have been another 3rd round pick that turned into nothing.

Pick for Larsen is on route to turning into nothing

 

Then there were players we signed which cost us a young player.

Weber cost us Corrado

Skille cost us Etem

In three off seasons we’ve watched, Santo, Bart, Matthias, Richardson, Weber, Hamhuis, Higgins, Prust, and Vbrata all walk for nothing.

 

We’ve took on 4 waiver eligible players that hadn’t proved to be NHL regulars in their first 3 years.  That’s not mitigating risk.

 

I’m not saying all these moves are terrible, because I was and still am on board with most the decisions made at the time, but that doesn’t mean things heading up to those decision, things could have been made differently to avoid the risk of ending up nothing.  It’s really not that hard to look forward and determine things like players contracts ending, waiver eligible players, and roster spots.  These are important things to help plan on how to reduce risk or things backfiring on us like they have so often.  That’s where I think we’ve failed a bit a no it’s not fire worthy, but it important for us to realize this and try to correct this moving forward with the rebuild. 

 

Yes all this is looked at in hindsight, but looking back and reviewing is how we determine if things were a success or not.

 

We can’t afford to have all those pieces that turned into nothing.  And yes people can say the odds of these players (late draft picks) making an impact in the NHL are slim but it’s not just about the NHL.  It could be AHL help, he could be a chance for us to watch our prospect and scout a teammate (like we did with Stecher) or even a player on the opposing team.  Or they can even be a player we watch develop and then flip for a bigger need.  Just because the odds may be low on NHL success doesn’t mean they won’t have value to this organization in some shape. 

 

Basically let’s not trade picks/prospects for unproven RFA’s that need to clear waivers, nor trade picks/prospects for upcoming UFA’s.   Let’s not sign under performed vets that end up costing us a spot of young players, vets that are likely to be depth players any way.  Let’s make sure that we get returns for players that have value before they depreciate or walk as a UFA, if we don’t plan on resigning them a plan should be in place to move them for an asset (hank and Danny are the exceptions to that rule).  Lets continue to rebuild like we are doing without unnecessary hiccups.

[Gaudette Celly]

The problem is that some are looking at things in a vacuum.  You simply cannot take each individual decision and move in isolation, then compare that to what you think "the plan" is.  "The Plan" is not some one-sentence mantra, and thereby cannot be seen as a one-dimensional linear concept.  Take a step back, and look at how all the different aspects of building a team and organization are being handled and progressed.  Progress IS happening -- results cannot be judged in microcosm, and especially not by what happens on the ice right now.  Not every single move will work out, there are reasoned gambles taken and sometimes players just don't develop as expected.

 

No rebuild or transition is possible without pain.

[JM_]

16 minutes ago, Stelar said:

it made sense to me already but thanks....

 

oops wrong guy! was going for the person you were talking to 

[Gaudette Celly]

14 hours ago, DeNiro said:

He said that he knows people want this to be a fast process?

 

I think it's more that people aren't on board with the process of signing vets and trying to squeak in the playoffs.

 

If you sell fans on playoffs they're gonna get impatient when it doesn't happen and we lose out on a higher pick. If you sell them on a rebuild and drafting top 3, I think most fans would get on board.

 

Fans are just frustrated that management appears to be trying to have the best of both worlds.

 

There is no plan to "squeak in the playoffs", nor any selling of such a likelihood, nor "trying to have the best of two worlds".  The repeated statement is to ice a competitive team and that the goal is always to make the playoffs.  They even said that it will always be the goal of the team, and realistically, it should be the goal of every team, without exception.

 

Ironically, it's the impatient fans who expect results right away that don't get it and want the team to nosedive into prolonged wallowing instead.

 

12 hours ago, drsofthands said:

our team right now, were the calgary flames like 4 years ago, and the oilers like 7 ago. We have a ways to go

 

A ways to go yes, but we are further ahead of where those teams were because our new core is already coming into the team and developing both there and elsewhere.  As noted before, our best three prospects aren't even on the team yet and we have more in the pipeline already.  Flames, Oilers, and Jets already have 90% of their best prospects on their teams already, yet for the most part they are still trying to get traction.

The Canucks have shown this year in many games (Montreal, Ottawa, at NY, first period against Rangers, first two against Chicago) that they have the ability to play at a high level against good teams.  But they are in transition, so such inconsistency is to be expected.

[Rocksterh8]

Linden and Benning and Willy need to be fired immediately!  

 

Thats all.