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

[Honky Cat]

7 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

 

 

Firstly, I don't allude to the Canucks as rebuilding for a decade, that's what TO did.  

 

Burke tried to go out and hit a home run with a big splashy deal or two that did not pan out. He gave up a 2nd OA and a 7th OA plus a second or two for Kessel. 

Dont see the similarities between the Burke rebuild in Toronto to what Benning is doing. Yes we have signed some free agents of note, and we did trade away some second round picks, but not for aging vets. 

 

 

we have not only hung onto our top picks, but added one. We traded away Kesler, Garrison and KB3. Yes we let Vrbrata walk, not much choice there and Hamhuis could have been dealt with sooner.  JB can trade vets this year. We now have the youngest defence in the entire league, and it's not bad.  Better than what TO has and they have been doing their rebuild for a lot longer. 

 

Yea Mathews would be nice, nicer than Joulevi.  But look at what that org has been thru in the last ten years, there best pick prior to 2014 was Kadri. 

That Kessel deal set the Leafs back about 4 years..IMO...Even though Benning hasn't done any such deal of that magnitude for the Canucks....I can understand the tankers dismay at the current management trying to fast track a rebuild utilizing draft picks ......Lets face it,... for a 'complete rebuild' to occur..they would have to part with the Sedins (replace core players).

 

It occurred to me watching that Toronto game,that without the Sedins...We would be looking at a shell of a team,that would probably draw 8 or 9K a night at Rogers..There would be nothing to see...just losing....It would be hopeless...we would literally be a ship without a rudder.

 

There's just not enough reinforcements to replace the older core players at this time....Fortunately,we are starting to see bits of the puzzle fitting together (even more so next year).

[D'Angelo Russell]

6 hours ago, samurai said:

Of course what gets lost in this is that the leafs have been one of the worst teams in the league over the past decade (28th I believe) and we are top 10 in terms of wins.   We've been better for longer and will in the end be bad for a shorter period than the leafs have been.  Remember too over that decade we had the Hawks, Kings and Ducks, and Jose to contend with.  We can already see some good signs with a number of players.    For example Horvat.   Look at the oiler or leafs, outside of McDavid is there any other player on either of those teams who you would take over Horvat?   Horvat is exceeding expectations big time.  

 

 

 

 

I understand your overall point but just in terms of centers, Matthews? or maybe even Draisaitl? Draisaitl is actually quite decent on the defensive side, although he lags Horvat in speed. 

[Baggins]

18 hours ago, LaBamba said:

 

Only a Vancouver fan would brag about pres cups. 

 

It's a hell of a lot more than TO has accomplished in the past 45 years.

[falcon45ca]

19 hours ago, Rocksterh8 said:

 

Ed Willis is a well respected writer,(who) has been in Van along (a long) time, and knows the team more than you ever will. If you chose (choose) not be believe him, thats (that's) your choice, (.) (It) doesn't mean (what he says)  it's (is)  not true.

A well respected writer with fans who also don't know how to write. 

 

The next thing you'll tell me is that 13 year old Justin Bieber fans know more about music than musicians.

 

You have over 5 grammatical errors in the 2 sentences you wrote. I'll bet you crush on Twitter.

[Moonshinefe]

Guys, I think the Leafs' 13th place to our 12th place means they've clearly rebuilt the correct way, while the Canucks are just completely lost.

 

[Phat Fingers]

9 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

I'm sorry, I was building on something you pointed out in passing. I share your views here.

 

No worries, 

 

 

[Phat Fingers]

4 hours ago, Honky Cat said:

That Kessel deal set the Leafs back about 4 years..IMO...Even though Benning hasn't done any such deal of that magnitude for the Canucks....I can understand the tankers dismay at the current management trying to fast track a rebuild utilizing draft picks ......Lets face it,... for a 'complete rebuild' to occur..they would have to part with the Sedins (replace core players).

 

It occurred to me watching that Toronto game,that without the Sedins...We would be looking at a shell of a team,that would probably draw 8 or 9K a night at Rogers..There would be nothing to see...just losing....It would be hopeless...we would literally be a ship without a rudder.

 

There's just not enough reinforcements to replace the older core players at this time....Fortunately,we are starting to see bits of the puzzle fitting together (even more so next year).

 

 

^^^For this franchise, a complete rebuild would be 'like a ship without a rudder' well put. 

 

 

Not not all rebuilds have to be the same.  Every roster is different and teams have different strengths, styles and players.  The management evaulated their roster and decided to take a different approach to TO. We also didn't get lucky at the draft lottery last year. 

 

Its bad business to plan for luck. The Leafs got lucky with Mathews. Either they got lucky or knew something others did not. I for one don't think the league would fail to capitalize on all the draft hype last year. Having TO win was great marketing. 

 

We could have ranked last year, scrubbed our roster and traded away all our vets. Where would that leave Horvat, Hutton and co. They would be getting beat downs every night. Added to that, we could have still ended up in the 5 hole at the draft.  

 

Look at the jets, they didn't tank and likely ended up with the best player from the draft.  

 

 

EW

[Rocksterh8]

3 hours ago, falcon45ca said:

A well respected writer with fans who also don't know how to write. 

 

The next thing you'll tell me is that 13 year old Justin Bieber fans know more about music than musicians.

 

You have over 5 grammatical errors in the 2 sentences you wrote. I'll bet you crush on Twitter.

 

Is this why you come on here.... to look for grammar errors? maybe you should get a life. lmao.  Oh, and please correct this one too, I don't mind

[appleboy]

The Leafs were lucky yes but we won three games at the end of the year that helped to hand them Matthews. That still sticks in my craw and at the time I was beside myself with disbelief that management allowed it to happen.

I think we are farther along then what some in the league might think. Demko is coming on strong in Utica and Virtanen will become a useful NHL player. Pencil in Juolevi, Boeser and Gaudette. Things will change very quickly. I still hope for a top five pick this year but who knows.

 

If you look at the Oilers and the Leafs you can see the difference that one top tier player can make. We maybe that close because we are already farther ahead of them on D and in the net.

[LaBamba]

5 hours ago, Baggins said:

 

It's a hell of a lot more than TO has accomplished in the past 45 years.

 

If that's an accomplishment to you, sure, I guess. For me, winning the Pres trophy 2 years in a row and not winning the last game of either year is shameful and embarrassing. 

[Toews]

11 hours ago, ice orca said:

A lot of those guys you mentioned probably won't make it to the big screen. I hope you are not one of those that figures that all Bennings picks makes it to the NHL. 

All of our prospects are the bestest while everyone else's are trash.

 

11 hours ago, The Lock said:

 

Because 10 years is soooooooo last decade, huh? 

 

The Detroit model is quite relevant. That's the entire point people are making. The fact is, they won a cup as you just pointed out. In fact, they won more than one if you consider the late 90's and early 2000's. It's a model that worked for longer than "merely 10 years ago". But, you know, it's evidence against what you're saying so it must be "irrelevant".

 

Stomping your feet saying "they're not relevant because I said so!" won't really change that. Just saying.... lol

The problem with the so called "Wings model" is that it relies on drafting star players with late round picks.

 

This was how Detroit drafted Datsyuk and Zetterberg...

Quote

It was through happenstance that Andersson discovered first Pavel Datsyuk and then Henrik Zetterberg. In 1997 he went to Moscow to scout Dmitri Kalinin, noticed Datsyuk playing for the other team, and decided he needed to see more of Datsyuk. He made the trip a second time and would have come again, but the flight he and a scout from the St. Louis Blues were on was cancelled due to a storm. The Wings drafted Datsyuk 171st overall in the 1998 NHL Entry Draft and Andersson believes he was the only NHL scout to have seen Datsyuk play prior to the draft.^[13][14] The next year Andersson travelled with Jim Nill to a tournament in Finland to scout Mattias Weinhandl. Nill was distracted, however, by "this little Zetterberg guy who always seemed to have the puck." Andersson and Nill came away with a very high opinion of Zetterberg, whom they drafted 210th overall in the 1999 draft, and he has matured into a superstar in the NHL

Andersson along with Gradin were the only players who saw Edler play as well. Detroit's superior advantage in European scouting is now non existent. They relied on selecting players playing in obscure locations in Europe who were barely scouted by anyone else. Their network of scouts in Europe allowed them to cover territory that other teams just never bothered to touch. That is no longer the case anymore, advancements in technology has made it so that just about every game can now be found on the Internet. You can now easily find games for SHL, Allvenskan, KHL, Liiga and even some lower leagues if you look hard enough. The days of finding a player in some small town in Sweden in the middle of nowhere are over. 

 

So I would agree with @LaBamba that the "Detroit model" or whatever people's perception of it is outdated. The Wings have found some decent depth through the draft, and they still continue to do well in Europe but nothing to the extent of what they used to do. And they will never be that successful again considering the strides that teams around them have made to increase their presence in Europe.

[189lb enforcers?]

Comparing the past. Is this what it has come to?

Rather than compare our future trajectories, posters now resort to living in the past, rather than looking forward.

 

Who cares how they got there? We were once drafting very high in the late 90's. Now its their turn; their day.

Mathews or not, they tore it down and got results, fast.

 

I can't imagine a worse state of Limbo for a Canucks fan, meanwhile, watching the Coilers and Leafs succeed in the outright tank-jobs because it "wasn't fair to the Sedins", etc.

[The Lock]

Here's the thing: the past is still a tool that can be used to assist in determining the future. This is not about "living in the past". This is about using one's experiences as a means to assist in future decisions. If we ignore the past, how can we learn? We can't at that point.

 

While Toews brings up a good point with the media coverage and internet these days, there's still a lot of players to scout. There are still "hidden gems" that are going to fall through the cracks. If anything, the games will turn people's attention to certain players while ignoring other players; therefore, while there might be some differences with the extended media coverage, it may still only change "who" gets overlooked. In fact, there's no guarantee that things will entirely change at all aside from the extra coverage. At the end of the day, it's really going to be down to who has the better scouts. If what Toews says is true, we should not be getting people like Klingberg coming in out of nowhere because we would have the "extra coverage" to see them and draft them sooner; therefore, given the evidence, the media coverage really doesn't change a whole lot.

 

As a result, Detroit. is not an outdated model. You guys can think "oh you're living in the past" all you want. It's about learning what works and what doesn't and, as soon as you start claiming methods are "out of date", you're merely being ignorant of what could still work.

[Toews]

31 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Here's the thing: the past is still a tool that can be used to assist in determining the future. This is not about "living in the past". This is about using one's experiences as a means to assist in future decisions. If we ignore the past, how can we learn? We can't at that point.

 

While Toews brings up a good point with the media coverage and internet these days, there's still a lot of players to scout. There are still "hidden gems" that are going to fall through the cracks. If anything, the games will turn people's attention to certain players while ignoring other players; therefore, while there might be some differences with the extended media coverage, it may still only change "who" gets overlooked. In fact, there's no guarantee that things will entirely change at all aside from the extra coverage. At the end of the day, it's really going to be down to who has the better scouts. If what Toews says is true, we should not be getting people like Klingberg coming in out of nowhere because we would have the "extra coverage" to see them and draft them sooner; therefore, given the evidence, the media coverage really doesn't change a whole lot.

 

As a result, Detroit. is not an outdated model. You guys can think "oh you're living in the past" all you want. It's about learning what works and what doesn't and, as soon as you start claiming methods are "out of date", you're merely being ignorant of what could still work.

I don't think you will find anyone deny that the draft is a crapshoot. The point of my post wasn't that there won't be any players that won't go unnoticed by GMs on draft day. The Detroit model or whatever that model used to be is outdated because they had access then to resources and information that other teams simply did not possess. That huge advantage that Detroit had is no more. The playing field eventually catches up and now all teams have access to those resources to varying degrees. Detroit is now competing with multiple teams for players that they once had almost exclusive access to

[appleboy]

Canuck fans need to focus on the draft for this year and next. (hopefully they keep our picks)

Look at what we have and think about players like Hischer, Liljegren, Rasmussen, Papugayev, Vilardi , Tolvanen, Patrick, Comtois or Tippett.

We should be able to acquire one of those players this year. Plus the rest of our picks and any other ones we can acquire.

 

If they can add a couple more high end players over the next two years we will look solid.

[VC420]

Falling two spots in the draft doesnt help your rebuild. 

All we asked for was to move up one spot so we could take Laine (who I thought was the best in the draft).

Instead Winnipeg moves up 4 four spots and we drop down two spots.

 

I really like Joulevi but the emergence of Stetcher might make that look like a needless pick. We drafted Joulevi because we needed a PP quarterback, however Stetcher is looking like a stud in that regard and its hard to sacrifice two spots on your defence for two players who play the same specific role.

I give JB the benefit of the doubt because no one knew Stetcher would be so good so soon.

What worries me about the JB method however is that he seems to hold 2way play in high regard. You need guys who can play defence but you shouldnt sacrifice skill either, especially since we have been perpetually stuck in the bottom 10 teams for goals scored since JB took over. Now with the offensive mindset of the NHL front office trying to limit goalie equipment and now I hear talks about making the rink wider, the league is trending towards pro-offense and we need to make adjustments. I want a pure skill guy in this draft, like a Mitch Marner type player because we have nobody with skill like that. We dont need another Horvat right now.

 

JB is supposed to be a good draft guy, but I find that is more because he drafts safe and doesnt take chances. Lots of his picks end up as NHL vets but this is because he drafts a lot of grinders and 2way guys who dont develop enough skill to become top 6 guys but are good enough defensively to be bottom 6 PK and energy players.

The number of top 6 players Benning (especially ones that can put up points) has drafted in his career isnt anything special.

I have a feeling Boston wouldnt have drafted Pastrnak if JB was still in charge of scouting.

 

Pavel Bure was just as much a part of that 94 team as Linden and co, and right now there is a serious void in our forward group when it comes to players like that.

I hope JB realizes this and goes for raw offensive talent this draft. Scoring more goals will help us make the playoffs and with current trends its going to get harder to win with defense. 

With the expansion draft coming up, I would like to see us trade Tanev for a pick and an offensive prospect. Edler is automatically protected and you have to protect Gudranson after you just traded for him so do you really want to use three protection spots for dmen, especially with Tryamkin, Stetcher and Joulevi all protected and all of them making waves. We have to ask ourselves do we really need Tanev? With our NMC's (Sedins, Eriksson and Edler) thats 4 of our spots there then Gudbranson and Horvat make six, you only have a couple spots left and you still have to choose between Baer, Hansen, Sutter and Tanev to protect. Lets face it, if Tanev is exposed he is going to Nevada. Trade him to a contender at the trade deadline I say.

Get a good prospect in return and draft another one and that will go along way to helping our forward talent pool and our rebuild in general.

 

 

 

 

[aGENT]

7 hours ago, appleboy said:

The Leafs were lucky yes but we won three games at the end of the year that helped to hand them Matthews.

 

We also could have won more games and ended up with Laine and not particularly care who Toronto got. But you already knew that

 

1 minute ago, VC420 said:

I really like Joulevi but the emergence of Stetcher might make that look like a needless pick. We drafted Joulevi because we needed a PP quarterback, however Stetcher is looking like a stud in that regard and its hard to sacrifice two spots on your defence for two players who play the same specific role.

 

 

Loves me some Stetcher but that's not why we drafted Juolevi.

[HerrDrFunk]

10 minutes ago, VC420 said:

Falling two spots in the draft doesnt help your rebuild. 

All we asked for was to move up one spot so we could take Laine (who I thought was the best in the draft).

Instead Winnipeg moves up 4 four spots and we drop down two spots.

 

I really like Joulevi but the emergence of Stetcher might make that look like a needless pick. We drafted Joulevi because we needed a PP quarterback, however Stetcher is looking like a stud in that regard and its hard to sacrifice two spots on your defence for two players who play the same specific role.

I give JB the benefit of the doubt because no one knew Stetcher would be so good so soon.

What worries me about the JB method however is that he seems to hold 2way play in high regard. You need guys who can play defence but you shouldnt sacrifice skill either, especially since we have been perpetually stuck in the bottom 10 teams for goals scored since JB took over. Now with the offensive mindset of the NHL front office trying to limit goalie equipment and now I hear talks about making the rink wider, the league is trending towards pro-offense and we need to make adjustments. I want a pure skill guy in this draft, like a Mitch Marner type player because we have nobody with skill like that. We dont need another Horvat right now.

 

JB is supposed to be a good draft guy, but I find that is more because he drafts safe and doesnt take chances. Lots of his picks end up as NHL vets but this is because he drafts a lot of grinders and 2way guys who dont develop enough skill to become top 6 guys but are good enough defensively to be bottom 6 PK and energy players.

The number of top 6 players Benning (especially ones that can put up points) has drafted in his career isnt anything special.

I have a feeling Boston wouldnt have drafted Pastrnak if JB was still in charge of scouting.

 

Pavel Bure was just as much a part of that 94 team as Linden and co, and right now there is a serious void in our forward group when it comes to players like that.

I hope JB realizes this and goes for raw offensive talent this draft. Scoring more goals will help us make the playoffs and with current trends its going to get harder to win with defense. 

With the expansion draft coming up, I would like to see us trade Tanev for a pick and an offensive prospect. Edler is automatically protected and you have to protect Gudranson after you just traded for him so do you really want to use three protection spots for dmen, especially with Tryamkin, Stetcher and Joulevi all protected and all of them making waves. We have to ask ourselves do we really need Tanev? With our NMC's (Sedins, Eriksson and Edler) thats 4 of our spots there then Gudbranson and Horvat make six, you only have a couple spots left and you still have to choose between Baer, Hansen, Sutter and Tanev to protect. Lets face it, if Tanev is exposed he is going to Nevada. Trade him to a contender at the trade deadline I say.

Get a good prospect in return and draft another one and that will go along way to helping our forward talent pool and our rebuild in general.

 

 

 

 

Oh, well it's really that simple, isn't it? We just need to find another superstar player, who all the other teams think is ineligible for the draft, and draft him. Easy as pie.

[VC420]

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

 

We also could have won more games and ended up with Laine and not particularly care who Toronto got. But you already knew that

 

 

Loves me some Stetcher but that's not why we drafted Juolevi.

 

Then why did we draft him if not for his offence? It certainly wasnt for his size or his defensive zone ability, It wasnt for his leadership or intensity.

If you wanted a dman for more than just offense, than Sergachev or Chychrun wouldve been smarter picks. Not saying I wouldve taken either of those players over Olli at the time, but his offensive potential was the main reason we drafted Joulevi.

I watched the draft and all the "experts" went on about how Joulevi is skill dman with good hands and puck moving ability, and will be a good powerplay QB but isnt strong enough or ready defensively to play in the NHL.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, VC420 said:

 

Then why did we draft him if not for his offence? It certainly wasnt for his size or his defensive zone ability, It wasnt for his leadership or intensity.

If you wanted a dman for more than just offense, than Sergachev or Chychrun wouldve been smarter picks. Not saying I wouldve taken either of those players over Olli at the time, but his offensive potential was the main reason we drafted Joulevi.

I watched the draft and all the "experts" went on about how Joulevi is skill dman with good hands and puck moving ability, and will be a good powerplay QB but isnt strong enough or ready defensively to play in the NHL.

 

Smartest D in the draft, sublime skater, ability to move the puck and find seams, ability to move play forward.

 

While all of that certainly helps produce offense, he is not an 'offensive D'. I'll be surprised if he's much more than at 30-40 point D in his prime.