Article - Leafs' reno on pace, while Canucks lagging behind

[oldnews]

10 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Another well thought out counterargument by oldnews, as usual devoid of any facts or statistics. 

You claimed that Benning expected to be a contender this year lol.

 

What would that have to do with facts?  Or statistics?

 

Doesn't take either to identify that as a ludicrous strawman.

 

 

[CanadianRugby]

5 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 Quality always trumps qaunity..  Every.... Single... Time...   

Leafs have quantity and quality.  Both by a longshot. 

[CanadianRugby]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

In Baggins world....

Management intentionally setting the team up to lose = I won't pay my hard earned money

Management icing the best team they can = I will pay to go to games and watch them compete

It's all about what I'll spend my entertainment money on.

Get it?

I can't argue with what your moral values are for what you'll spend money on.  What I will argue every time are suggestions that half assed rebuilds are better for a hockey team because of morals.  

[Baggins]

Just now, CanadianRugby said:

I can't argue with what your moral values are for what you'll spend money on.  What I will argue every time are suggestions that half assed rebuilds are better for a hockey team because of morals.  

I think they're doing it right. Build the supporting cast first and trying to remain competitive. Making maximum use of the time elite talent is elite when it comes. Otherwise your wasting several years of the elite talent trying to build a team around them. Elite talent can be had outside that top three. If you get them great. But lay the foundation first to maximize their use long term. Edmonton took so long because they struggled to build the foundation behind all those top picks.

 

We started with nothing. We need the foundation in place. Elite talent is useless without a team behind them. You want a backwards rebuild imo. We've already experienced that with the WCE and then the Sedins. Small windows of real opportunity.

[Baggins]

34 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Leafs have quantity and quality.  Both by a longshot. 

It only took them a decade.

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

Build the supporting cast first and trying to remain competitive.

lol

 

Have you checked the standings anytime in the last 2 years?

[kanucks25]

8 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

And the funniest part is the last placed team didn't even win mcdavid. Shows how Benifcial tanking is. 

Yeah, I know right? 'Cause Eichel is a complete bust...?

 

Rebuilding isn't only about getting the 1st overall draft pick.

 

8 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

So I guess pointing out the number of picks doesn't really mean much now does it. Why because, Quality always trumps qaunity..  Every.... Single... Time...   

The draft is a lottery. It's always beneficial to have more lottery tickets than less, especially when you're "rebuilding".

 

[48MPHSlapShot]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

It only took them a decade.

This kind of says it all right here, and really ends all debate.

[kanucks25]

On 5/9/2017 at 9:10 PM, oldnews said:

Picks the Leafs have traded away in the past 3 years:

 

2nd 17 for Boyle rental LOL

1st 16 for Andersson

2nd 17 for Andersson

5th 16 in the Laich deal

Conditional pick in the Rychel deal

2nd 16 in the Kessel deal

4th 15 in the Marincin deal

 

That is 7!! pickz they traded in 3 years in the middle of a rebuild.  How stupid!!!!!  And 4 of them in the first 2 roundz!!!!!!  Unbelievable!

 

And then there is the Jeremy Morin for Richard Panik deal.  Morin, a 26yr old career AHLer - for Panik - a 22 goal, 44 point player this year and still an RFA.  What an epic fail for the Laffs. 

 

Ermagerd, imagine where the rebuild coulda been without these setbacks -when they should be keeping all the picz and certainly keeping young 20+ RFA goalscorers!!

Andersen was a top-10 (at worst) goalie this year and has many good years in front of him. And they got Carrick for that pick, not just Laich.

 

The Boyle deal is the only one that goes against their "strategy" but their rebuild was accelerated with how fast their good young players broke out. They probably didn't expect to trade for a rental for another year or two but they decided it was worth it 'cause they were in the fight for a playoff spot and already have a ton of prospects/picks.

 

It's not the same as how Benning threw away picks.

[kanucks25]

1 minute ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

This kind of says it all right here, and really ends all debate.

How long they were bad before Shanahan and co. got there has literally nothing to do with how Shanahan and co. went about their business.

 

Yes, they had a better foundation than Benning inherited but they still executed their rebuild whereas Benning fumbled around for two and a half years.

 

The equivalent to what Benning did here would be the Leafs keeping Kessel and Phaneuf and trading picks for older players, and how would have that worked out?

[48MPHSlapShot]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

How long they were bad before Shanahan and co. got there has literally nothing to do with how Shanahan and co. went about their business.

 

Yes, they had a better foundation than Benning inherited but they still executed their rebuild whereas Benning fumbled around for two and a half years.

 

The equivalent to what Benning did here would be the Leafs keeping Kessel and Phaneuf and trading picks for older players, and how would have that worked out?

Examples of this please.

 

Also, I guess we're just ignoring the differences between our situation and TO's? You know, the fact that we have two twin brothers on identical 7 million dollar contracts that are virtually untradeable.

 

That's why it makes little-to-no sense to even attempt to compare our situation to TO's.

[CanadianRugby]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

I think they're doing it right. Build the supporting cast first and trying to remain competitive. Making maximum use of the time elite talent is elite when it comes. Otherwise your wasting several years of the elite talent trying to build a team around them. Elite talent can be had outside that top three. If you get them great. But lay the foundation first to maximize their use long term. Edmonton took so long because they struggled to build the foundation behind all those top picks.

 

We started with nothing. We need the foundation in place. Elite talent is useless without a team behind them. You want a backwards rebuild imo. We've already experienced that with the WCE and then the Sedins. Small windows of real opportunity.

Yeah for sure you need a foundation and not just stars.  That foundation (as Benning has done a ok job at) can be done at any time.  Stars are usually found at the top of the draft, and Vancouver is in a rare opportunity to go for it.  When that foundation improves, and it will, it will also take the Canucks out of superstar territory as far as drafts go.  If we get lucky like Ottawa and find one of the best players in the world late, great.  Vancouver is due for something like that.  I just don't like taking a route that is less likely to succeed.  For me, temporary pain is worth it for the best chance at the cup possible.  

[Baggins]

16 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

lol

 

Have you checked the standings anytime in the last 2 years?

Did you actually watch the seasons? They were in the playoff hunt the first half both seasons until injuries piled up. They were also in most games until the end, So yes, they "tried" to stay competitive while rebuilding. Far different from setting the team up to lose from the get go and watching games that are over after the first period.

[Baggins]

28 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Yeah for sure you need a foundation and not just stars.  That foundation (as Benning has done a ok job at) can be done at any time.  Stars are usually found at the top of the draft, and Vancouver is in a rare opportunity to go for it.  When that foundation improves, and it will, it will also take the Canucks out of superstar territory as far as drafts go.  If we get lucky like Ottawa and find one of the best players in the world late, great.  Vancouver is due for something like that.  I just don't like taking a route that is less likely to succeed.  For me, temporary pain is worth it for the best chance at the cup possible.  

Not really. As I've said several time, 6 of TO's top 10 producers this season were already on the team or in the system. Good enough for a foundation, not good enough to carry a team. They sucked until TO added their top picks from the last three drafts and all those guys get pushed down a line and suddenly they're a good team. Same with Pittsburgh and Chicago. The elite talent came last and they went from top three picks to playoff teams damn fast.

 

The foundation takes longer to develop than the elite players. Get the foundation in place developing before the elite talent arrives and you have Chicago and Pittsburgh contending for years.

 

There's two choices:

1 - Get your elite talent first. Then add the support that takes years to develop and have a smaller window to contend.

2 - Get the support in place developing first, Then get the elite talent to maximize their years to contend.

 

#2 is what Chicago and Pittsburgh did. Would you rather have a two to five year window or a six to ten year window to contend? If you ask me taking the route that gives a smaller window is less likely to succeed. We've already gone that route with the WCE and then Sedins. The Sedins took too long to develop for the WCE and then we took too long getting the support for the Sedins. Small windows of opportunity.

 

After three years we've got some good pieces in place. The pain is still going to come for the elite talent. When Linden/Benning took over Shinkaruk was our top prospect in the AHL and three years later he's still not an NHL player. Starting from nothing this wasn't going to be a fast rebuild.

[48MPHSlapShot]

4 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Not really. As I've said several time, 6 of TO's top 10 producers this season were already on the team or in the system. Good enough for a foundation, not good enough to carry a team. They sucked until TO added their top picks from the last three drafts and all those guys get pushed down a line and suddenly they're a good team. Same with Pittsburgh and Chicago. The elite talent came last and they went from top three picks to playoff teams damn fast.

 

The foundation takes longer to develop than the elite players. Get the foundation in place developing before the elite talent arrives and you have Chicago and Pittsburgh contending for years.

 

There's two choices:

1 - Get your elite talent first. Then add the support that takes years to develop and have a smaller window to contend.

2 - Get the support in place developing first, Then get the elite talent to maximize their years to contend.

 

#2 is what Chicago and Pittsburgh did. Would you rather have a two to five year window or an six to ten year window to contend? If you ask me taking the route that gives a smaller window is less likely to succed. We've already gone that route with the WCE and then Sedins. The Sedins took too long to develop for the WCE and then we took too long getting the support for the Sedins. Small windows of opportunity.

 

After three years we've got some good pieces in place. The pain is still going to come for the elite talent. When Linden/Benning took over Shinkaruk was our top prospect in the AHL and three years later he's still not an NHL player. Starting from nothing this wasn't going to be a fast rebuild.

Remember when Corrado was our best prospect? 

 

Considering where we were, and where we are now, I'd say Benning has done a pretty decent job.

 

The team currently on the ice is largely irrelevant right now. Every core has a life expectancy, and ours just happens to be up. The situation in terms of the main roster would have been largely the same regardless of who was named GM. 

[granpappy]

it's very sad how so many are so opposed to rebuilding through the draft, associating grabbing a top pick with tanking.  holding onto the theory of wanting to watch a semi-competitive team manage to just stay in games or stay in the playoff hunt as being fair value for their entertainment buck.  maintaining the conviction that great players can easily be had in the later rounds.  believing that we need to keep the vets around to mentor our rookies.  it is all fool hardy.  the draft is to help poor teams become competitive again.   and now, although trev has said we are rebuilding, i will be very surprised to see tanev traded for another building block, in fact i wouldn't be surprised to see some more support players come on board to continue the mediocracy.  it is the canuck way.  we have, for the most part, been mediocre for decades.  we have also, rarely drafted near the top of the board.  i found it very difficult to watch games last year and viewed the cup as half empty.  we have not had much luck and managaement has never been savvy enough to manipulate our way to having a large number of top picks in our system at any one time.  

 

summary:  the draft is good donkey

 

epilogue:  oh how i wish sammy pollock was our gm 

 

 

 

 

       

[Gaudette Celly]

19 minutes ago, granpappy said:

it's very sad how so many are so opposed to rebuilding through the draft      

Please list all this "so many" you speak of.

 

Okay, how about even one?

[Baggins]

36 minutes ago, granpappy said:

it's very sad how so many are so opposed to rebuilding through the draft, associating grabbing a top pick with tanking.  holding onto the theory of wanting to watch a semi-competitive team manage to just stay in games or stay in the playoff hunt as being fair value for their entertainment buck.  maintaining the conviction that great players can easily be had in the later rounds.  believing that we need to keep the vets around to mentor our rookies.  it is all fool hardy.  the draft is to help poor teams become competitive again.   and now, although trev has said we are rebuilding, i will be very surprised to see tanev traded for another building block, in fact i wouldn't be surprised to see some more support players come on board to continue the mediocracy.  it is the canuck way.  we have, for the most part, been mediocre for decades.  we have also, rarely drafted near the top of the board.  i found it very difficult to watch games last year and viewed the cup as half empty.  we have not had much luck and managaement has never been savvy enough to manipulate our way to having a large number of top picks in our system at any one time.  

 

summary:  the draft is good donkey

 

epilogue:  oh how i wish sammy pollock was our gm

Picks outside the first round are typically three to five years away - if they make it at all. Having nothing to start with, were you willing to wait that long for some youth on the team? We have some youth on the team and can afford to wait for later picks now. But when you start with nothing speeding that process up is a smart move.

 

Would last season have been more palitable to you with an extra Skille and Megna types in place of Baertschi and Granlund?

 

Baertschi, Granlund, Vey, Etem. Two succeeded, two failed. That's getting 50% right. Only 25% of 2nd round picks ever manage to play 200 NHL games and it only goes down from there in later rounds. Getting 50% right and skipping 2 to 5 years of development just to get to the NHL is not a bad thing. Scouting doesn't end at junior.

[kanucks25]

2 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Examples of this please.

 

Also, I guess we're just ignoring the differences between our situation and TO's? You know, the fact that we have two twin brothers on identical 7 million dollar contracts that are virtually untradeable.

 

That's why it makes little-to-no sense to even attempt to compare our situation to TO's.

The Sedins being here have nothing to do with the rebuild. We could have rebuilt properly with them on the team, and they're a great asset for our young players. It's a poor excuse.

[kanucks25]

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

Did you actually watch the seasons? They were in the playoff hunt the first half both seasons until injuries piled up. They were also in most games until the end, So yes, they "tried" to stay competitive while rebuilding. Far different from setting the team up to lose from the get go and watching games that are over after the first period.

Pretty much every team goes through injuries, we just didn't have the depth to overcome them because we were not a good team.

 

If you need everything to go perfect throughout the season to squeak into the playoffs, you're not "competitive", you're just extremely lucky and you'll probably get bounced pretty early in the playoffs.

 

Expecting to go through a season relatively healthy is foolish. Management should account for this before the start of the season instead of sacrificing assets to be "competitive" and have it blow up in their face.