Linden: "We are rebuilding this team"

[Sweathog]

Do people really think that most of the pundits on TSN actually believe what they say? Of course they don't, they have to cater to their biggest market, a market that has a severe inferiority complex when it comes to the Canucks.

 

Please keep in mind that before 2 seasons ago, the Canucks were basically the Leaf's daddy for a decade. How many times did they actually beat us in those 10 years? Two, maybe three times? And to add insult to injury, the Canucks stole the Leaf's best chance at a Stanley Cup final back in '94.

 

So to appease those fans in Toronto, TSN has to do what they've been doing. Every Canuck mistake is exaggerated, every success minimized. The opposite goes for the Leafs, every success exaggerated, most mistakes ignored.

 

I don't blame TSN for doing this, it's just business.

[lmm]

On 7/2/2017 at 6:04 AM, DrJockitch said:

EmW you have to remember that for a lot of people on this board developmental leagues mean failure, no matter the age of the player.  These happen to be the first people that jump all over JB because Jake was rushed into the league, but what does logic matter when you get to be an internet troll.

 

We were a 29th place team and have replaced Tryamkin and Sbisa with MDZ and Weircioch (gonna take me a while to learn that spelling), that is a significant step down.  Burmistrov and Gagne are likely steps up on the spare pieces filling the roll at forward and we have an unproven tandem in net.  Not sure how this ends the tank, we still look like we are in contention for the basement.  

 

Lets the youth have time to develop in appropriate developmental leagues instead of losing night after night, the next few years will be rough.

What does that say about Bo, Granny, Hutton and Stetch?

Hang in there boys, just one more year of Sdinery, two years of Edler, three years of Balls and five years of 6x6. We'll give you a team to play with before you're 30. Actually Hutty maybe not.

[DrJockitch]

Not sure what you are saying here.  These guys continue to improve but they are not enough to be competitive.  

 

Bo was only one to jump from Junior and he had a lot of games in Memorial cups, deep playoff runs and WJC under his belt, not the average junior career.  Stetcher and Hutton spent years in NCAA a developmental league.  Granny was in the AHL.  Not sure that was the point you were trying to make though.

 

As far as what it says to them, not sure it says anything.  We are going to be bad the next few years.  Forcing young guys into the league when not ready will make us bad for even more years ala Edmonton.  These are decent gambles that cost nothing but cap space that wasn't being used for anything else.  If a waiver eligible player forces their way into the lineup great.  UFAs are not going to make us a competitive team and if one of the 6 works out to be something of value moving forward then great.

[lmm]

39 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Not sure what you are saying here.  These guys continue to improve but they are not enough to be competitive.  

 

Bo was only one to jump from Junior and he had a lot of games in Memorial cups, deep playoff runs and WJC under his belt, not the average junior career.  Stetcher and Hutton spent years in NCAA a developmental league.  Granny was in the AHL.  Not sure that was the point you were trying to make though.

 

As far as what it says to them, not sure it says anything.  We are going to be bad the next few years.  Forcing young guys into the league when not ready will make us bad for even more years ala Edmonton.  These are decent gambles that cost nothing but cap space that wasn't being used for anything else.  If a waiver eligible player forces their way into the lineup great.  UFAs are not going to make us a competitive team and if one of the 6 works out to be something of value moving forward then great.

Do they though?

Bo does, no question, but the jury is out on the other 3.

Bo is starting to look like Rick Nash in Columbus, if he is lucky , or maybe Shane Doan.

"Hey kid we're going to build a team around you, just wait for this Brule kid, oh wait I mean Filitov...."

Where is this progress you see from Hutty and Stetch (after only one season)? And will they continue to improve if they get torched for another -29 for 2 or more years?

[Baggins]

On 2017-07-02 at 6:04 AM, DrJockitch said:

EmW you have to remember that for a lot of people on this board developmental leagues mean failure, no matter the age of the player.  These happen to be the first people that jump all over JB because Jake was rushed into the league, but what does logic matter when you get to be an internet troll.

 

We were a 29th place team and have replaced Tryamkin and Sbisa with MDZ and Weircioch (gonna take me a while to learn that spelling), that is a significant step down.  Burmistrov and Gagne are likely steps up on the spare pieces filling the roll at forward and we have an unproven tandem in net.  Not sure how this ends the tank, we still look like we are in contention for the basement.  

 

Lets the youth have time to develop in appropriate developmental leagues instead of losing night after night, the next few years will be rough.

Edler Tanev

DelZotto Stecher

Hutton Gudbranson

 

Weircioch is a depth signing.

[Team Bagues]

On 07/02/2017 at 8:03 AM, J.R. said:

Yup. The only reason we might to slightly better is that this year, we'll have actual, skilled prospects to call up instead of Megna etc when injuries strike. I highly doubt we get out of the bottom 10 and probably still +/- 25th worst team. But hey we might be a touch more entertaining while we lose and even with injuries!

 

And with that, we just gained a bunch of assets we can flip for picks/prospects over the next 1-3 years TDL's. THAT is how you rebuild.

 

Benning has KILLED IT this whole summer IMO. 

I like the thinking in the flip for picks.

Another poster spoke of the small money that was required across all the signings.

So while filling a roster it also set-up filling the pick cabinet.

In Lindenning I trust.

[Team Bagues]

On 04/29/2017 at 1:03 PM, oldnews said:

You tell a cool revision k.o.s. and are married to your crap goggles for sure.

But, you missed the plot and fundamentally didn't understand what was unfolding before your eyes.  Context helps with those if you care for any.

You're free of course to pre-judge the results - but you're playing a fools game in doing so.

 

Now. let's get to something that actually matters.

 

The team added transitional/space filler pieces along the way - Vrbata, Miller - you appear to have a big problem with that - for who knows what reason, but it's inconsequential in the long run - which you claim to have your sights on lol.

 

The team added pieces to close a demographic gap between the departing core and the prospects just arriving or on the way.

Sutter cost Bonino - you have no real protest there.   Kesler was moved for Bonino, Sbisa, pick - converted into Gudbranson in the end - again - no real source for your protest.

In dwelling on your stubborn fixation on a tear down, you've presumed that picks would return you more than these assets.

 

Now, here's what really matters.  A team must draft and develop well throughout the rounds - not simply get a couple magic beans and not simply get volumes of lottery tickets.

In the end a team must hit with a good batting average in the draft.

 

So, let's look at the Canucks drafts of the past 3/4 years.

I'll start with the draft preceding Benning, because he has had an impact on it via the trade market.

 

2013 entry draft:

Horvat - nothing needs be said here.

Shinkaruk - dealt for Granlund - who has emerged as a middle six, 20 goal/40pt range/82g quality young roster player

Cassels - longshot, but not buried.

Subban - longshot, but reasonable opportunity.

So, while Horvat was the only real hit for Gillis here, Benning recovered a 2nd good roster player - and there is the potential of a 3rd NHLer from that draft.  Two to three NHLers out of a draft is a viable success rate for an NHL franchise.

 

2014 entry draft:

Virtanen - everyone has a crystal ball.  Green considers him an NHL player that can be effective in a lot of ways - don't see any point in prejudging this prospect - but his NHL career is still a question mark.

McCann - a late 1st with moderate NHL odds - another 1/3 of the Kesler deal that was converted into Gudbranson - again whom people are prematurely divided regarding, but like Sutter, is an NHL asset that an alternative - a draft pick - certainly doesn not guarantee. 

Demko -  certainly appears to have an NHL trajectory.

Tryamkin - definite NHL player if he wants to be.  Whether he returns is unknown.

Forsling - argue until you're blue in the face - in the end he became part of the Sutter deal - which people are divided on but is a 1/3 offshoot of the Kesler deal, +this 5th round pick.

So - there you have, out of 2014 - one NHL asset in Gudbranson / McCann / 1/3 of Kesler return, a 2nd absent NHL asset in Tryamkin (whose rights we retain), a part of an NHL asset in the conversion of the 5th into the 2nd piece in the Sutter deal, and reasonably realistic potential 2nd, and 3rd pieces in Virtanen and Demko (and a 4th lurking/depending on Tryamkin's eventual path).  Certainly a viable success rate from this draft, even at this early stage.

 

2015 entry draft:

Boeser - NHL player already

2nd rd pick = Baertschi.

Brisebois - mid to longshot

Zhukenov - longshot

Neill - midshot

Gaudette - 5th round hit - very high trajectory.

Olson - longshot

So, when your top pick is a 23rd overall, and in his draft plus 2 season he's an NHL asset - and a 2nd round pick was converted into a middle six forward (Baertschi) that is viable draft success - as are the realistic trajectories of a few other picks in this draft.  No one can really project the future of guys like Gaudette or Brisebois - but at the same time, and here's where the pretenses of the crap goggles crowd are exposed - you also can't prejudge Benning and the scouting/drafting/development elements of the franchise to be a "FAIL".  That is a negative fools game - and negativity is far too often a substitute for intelligence.

 

2016 entry draft:

There is no point attempting to project NHL trajectories beyond Juolevi, aside from saying that guys like Lockwood (a young draftee) and McKenzie had very promising plus one seasons.

However - and quite crucially - the team added an NHL player outside the draft in Stecher - who combined with Juolevi would suggest that 2016 represents another viable success rate in adding young, NHL assets to the franchise.  Griffin Molino is also a mid-shot addition.

 

Hutton and Gaunce represent the possibility that even the 2012 entry draft was reasonably viable in the end as well.

 

Now, clearly this team has not exclusively 'transitioned' through the draft.

 

Granlund, Goldobin, and Dahlen represent additional prospects - 1st and 2nd round picks - that have been added in post-draft-pick form.

 

So, to summarize - in three years:

 

Sutter, Gudbranson, Sbisa stemming all from the Kesler deal.

Hutton, Stecher, Juolevi, (Tryamkin) stemming from Canucks drafting and scouting/UFA signing. 

Baertschi, Boeser, Granlund, Goldobin....

That is a handful of 'transition' / rebuild assets added to both groups, forward and defensive - in 3 years time. 

That doesn't include assets like Demko, Dahlen, the rest of the prospect pool, or players like Molino, Gaunce - or Boucher - players on the edge of the roster.

 

Already, Benning is hitting at a rate of 3 to 4 NHL assets per year via the draft and transition/'rebuild' trades - and that is without any development trajectories within the franchise's system and prospects.   So many times repeated, but 19 of 23 spots turned over in 3 years - and yet some people with their blinders on are waiting for the 'rebuild' to really begin.  Kudos to how stubborn that mindset is - it's persistence - but wadr, you can't see the forest.... Maybe you'll wake up at this year's draft, when another 6 prospects are added in the first 120 picks.

 

 

You mean being a GM isn't like playing video games.???

A very good description of what a rebuild looks like.

[Phat Fingers]

On 2017-04-29 at 5:03 PM, oldnews said:

You tell a cool revision k.o.s. and are married to your crap goggles for sure.

But, you missed the plot and fundamentally didn't understand what was unfolding before your eyes.  Context helps with those if you care for any.

You're free of course to pre-judge the results - but you're playing a fools game in doing so.

 

Now. let's get to something that actually matters.

 

The team added transitional/space filler pieces along the way - Vrbata, Miller - you appear to have a big problem with that - for who knows what reason, but it's inconsequential in the long run - which you claim to have your sights on lol.

 

The team added pieces to close a demographic gap between the departing core and the prospects just arriving or on the way.

Sutter cost Bonino - you have no real protest there.   Kesler was moved for Bonino, Sbisa, pick - converted into Gudbranson in the end - again - no real source for your protest.

In dwelling on your stubborn fixation on a tear down, you've presumed that picks would return you more than these assets.

 

Now, here's what really matters.  A team must draft and develop well throughout the rounds - not simply get a couple magic beans and not simply get volumes of lottery tickets.

In the end a team must hit with a good batting average in the draft.

 

So, let's look at the Canucks drafts of the past 3/4 years.

I'll start with the draft preceding Benning, because he has had an impact on it via the trade market.

 

2013 entry draft:

Horvat - nothing needs be said here.

Shinkaruk - dealt for Granlund - who has emerged as a middle six, 20 goal/40pt range/82g quality young roster player

Cassels - longshot, but not buried.

Subban - longshot, but reasonable opportunity.

So, while Horvat was the only real hit for Gillis here, Benning recovered a 2nd good roster player - and there is the potential of a 3rd NHLer from that draft.  Two to three NHLers out of a draft is a viable success rate for an NHL franchise.

 

2014 entry draft:

Virtanen - everyone has a crystal ball.  Green considers him an NHL player that can be effective in a lot of ways - don't see any point in prejudging this prospect - but his NHL career is still a question mark.

McCann - a late 1st with moderate NHL odds - another 1/3 of the Kesler deal that was converted into Gudbranson - again whom people are prematurely divided regarding, but like Sutter, is an NHL asset that an alternative - a draft pick - certainly doesn not guarantee. 

Demko -  certainly appears to have an NHL trajectory.

Tryamkin - definite NHL player if he wants to be.  Whether he returns is unknown.

Forsling - argue until you're blue in the face - in the end he became part of the Sutter deal - which people are divided on but is a 1/3 offshoot of the Kesler deal, +this 5th round pick.

So - there you have, out of 2014 - one NHL asset in Gudbranson / McCann / 1/3 of Kesler return, a 2nd absent NHL asset in Tryamkin (whose rights we retain), a part of an NHL asset in the conversion of the 5th into the 2nd piece in the Sutter deal, and reasonably realistic potential 2nd, and 3rd pieces in Virtanen and Demko (and a 4th lurking/depending on Tryamkin's eventual path).  Certainly a viable success rate from this draft, even at this early stage.

 

2015 entry draft:

Boeser - NHL player already

2nd rd pick = Baertschi.

Brisebois - mid to longshot

Zhukenov - longshot

Neill - midshot

Gaudette - 5th round hit - very high trajectory.

Olson - longshot

So, when your top pick is a 23rd overall, and in his draft plus 2 season he's an NHL asset - and a 2nd round pick was converted into a middle six forward (Baertschi) that is viable draft success - as are the realistic trajectories of a few other picks in this draft.  No one can really project the future of guys like Gaudette or Brisebois - but at the same time, and here's where the pretenses of the crap goggles crowd are exposed - you also can't prejudge Benning and the scouting/drafting/development elements of the franchise to be a "FAIL".  That is a negative fools game - and negativity is far too often a substitute for intelligence.

 

2016 entry draft:

There is no point attempting to project NHL trajectories beyond Juolevi, aside from saying that guys like Lockwood (a young draftee) and McKenzie had very promising plus one seasons.

However - and quite crucially - the team added an NHL player outside the draft in Stecher - who combined with Juolevi would suggest that 2016 represents another viable success rate in adding young, NHL assets to the franchise.  Griffin Molino is also a mid-shot addition.

 

Hutton and Gaunce represent the possibility that even the 2012 entry draft was reasonably viable in the end as well.

 

Now, clearly this team has not exclusively 'transitioned' through the draft.

 

Granlund, Goldobin, and Dahlen represent additional prospects - 1st and 2nd round picks - that have been added in post-draft-pick form.

 

So, to summarize - in three years:

 

Sutter, Gudbranson, Sbisa stemming all from the Kesler deal.

Hutton, Stecher, Juolevi, (Tryamkin) stemming from Canucks drafting and scouting/UFA signing. 

Baertschi, Boeser, Granlund, Goldobin....

That is a handful of 'transition' / rebuild assets added to both groups, forward and defensive - in 3 years time. 

That doesn't include assets like Demko, Dahlen, the rest of the prospect pool, or players like Molino, Gaunce - or Boucher - players on the edge of the roster.

 

Already, Benning is hitting at a rate of 3 to 4 NHL assets per year via the draft and transition/'rebuild' trades - and that is without any development trajectories within the franchise's system and prospects.   So many times repeated, but 19 of 23 spots turned over in 3 years - and yet some people with their blinders on are waiting for the 'rebuild' to really begin.  Kudos to how stubborn that mindset is - it's persistence - but wadr, you can't see the forest.... Maybe you'll wake up at this year's draft, when another 6 prospects are added in the first 120 picks.

 

 

Great job Old News. Slow clap of respect. 

 

 

[IBatch]

On 29/04/2017 at 4:03 PM, oldnews said:

You tell a cool revision k.o.s. and are married to your crap goggles for sure.

But, you missed the plot and fundamentally didn't understand what was unfolding before your eyes.  Context helps with those if you care for any.

You're free of course to pre-judge the results - but you're playing a fools game in doing so.

 

Now. let's get to something that actually matters.

 

The team added transitional/space filler pieces along the way - Vrbata, Miller - you appear to have a big problem with that - for who knows what reason, but it's inconsequential in the long run - which you claim to have your sights on lol.

 

The team added pieces to close a demographic gap between the departing core and the prospects just arriving or on the way.

Sutter cost Bonino - you have no real protest there.   Kesler was moved for Bonino, Sbisa, pick - converted into Gudbranson in the end - again - no real source for your protest.

In dwelling on your stubborn fixation on a tear down, you've presumed that picks would return you more than these assets.

 

Now, here's what really matters.  A team must draft and develop well throughout the rounds - not simply get a couple magic beans and not simply get volumes of lottery tickets.

In the end a team must hit with a good batting average in the draft.

 

So, let's look at the Canucks drafts of the past 3/4 years.

I'll start with the draft preceding Benning, because he has had an impact on it via the trade market.

 

2013 entry draft:

Horvat - nothing needs be said here.

Shinkaruk - dealt for Granlund - who has emerged as a middle six, 20 goal/40pt range/82g quality young roster player

Cassels - longshot, but not buried.

Subban - longshot, but reasonable opportunity.

So, while Horvat was the only real hit for Gillis here, Benning recovered a 2nd good roster player - and there is the potential of a 3rd NHLer from that draft.  Two to three NHLers out of a draft is a viable success rate for an NHL franchise.

 

2014 entry draft:

Virtanen - everyone has a crystal ball.  Green considers him an NHL player that can be effective in a lot of ways - don't see any point in prejudging this prospect - but his NHL career is still a question mark.

McCann - a late 1st with moderate NHL odds - another 1/3 of the Kesler deal that was converted into Gudbranson - again whom people are prematurely divided regarding, but like Sutter, is an NHL asset that an alternative - a draft pick - certainly doesn not guarantee. 

Demko -  certainly appears to have an NHL trajectory.

Tryamkin - definite NHL player if he wants to be.  Whether he returns is unknown.

Forsling - argue until you're blue in the face - in the end he became part of the Sutter deal - which people are divided on but is a 1/3 offshoot of the Kesler deal, +this 5th round pick.

So - there you have, out of 2014 - one NHL asset in Gudbranson / McCann / 1/3 of Kesler return, a 2nd absent NHL asset in Tryamkin (whose rights we retain), a part of an NHL asset in the conversion of the 5th into the 2nd piece in the Sutter deal, and reasonably realistic potential 2nd, and 3rd pieces in Virtanen and Demko (and a 4th lurking/depending on Tryamkin's eventual path).  Certainly a viable success rate from this draft, even at this early stage.

 

2015 entry draft:

Boeser - NHL player already

2nd rd pick = Baertschi.

Brisebois - mid to longshot

Zhukenov - longshot

Neill - midshot

Gaudette - 5th round hit - very high trajectory.

Olson - longshot

So, when your top pick is a 23rd overall, and in his draft plus 2 season he's an NHL asset - and a 2nd round pick was converted into a middle six forward (Baertschi) that is viable draft success - as are the realistic trajectories of a few other picks in this draft.  No one can really project the future of guys like Gaudette or Brisebois - but at the same time, and here's where the pretenses of the crap goggles crowd are exposed - you also can't prejudge Benning and the scouting/drafting/development elements of the franchise to be a "FAIL".  That is a negative fools game - and negativity is far too often a substitute for intelligence.

 

2016 entry draft:

There is no point attempting to project NHL trajectories beyond Juolevi, aside from saying that guys like Lockwood (a young draftee) and McKenzie had very promising plus one seasons.

However - and quite crucially - the team added an NHL player outside the draft in Stecher - who combined with Juolevi would suggest that 2016 represents another viable success rate in adding young, NHL assets to the franchise.  Griffin Molino is also a mid-shot addition.

 

Hutton and Gaunce represent the possibility that even the 2012 entry draft was reasonably viable in the end as well.

 

Now, clearly this team has not exclusively 'transitioned' through the draft.

 

Granlund, Goldobin, and Dahlen represent additional prospects - 1st and 2nd round picks - that have been added in post-draft-pick form.

 

So, to summarize - in three years:

 

Sutter, Gudbranson, Sbisa stemming all from the Kesler deal.

Hutton, Stecher, Juolevi, (Tryamkin) stemming from Canucks drafting and scouting/UFA signing. 

Baertschi, Boeser, Granlund, Goldobin....

That is a handful of 'transition' / rebuild assets added to both groups, forward and defensive - in 3 years time. 

That doesn't include assets like Demko, Dahlen, the rest of the prospect pool, or players like Molino, Gaunce - or Boucher - players on the edge of the roster.

 

Already, Benning is hitting at a rate of 3 to 4 NHL assets per year via the draft and transition/'rebuild' trades - and that is without any development trajectories within the franchise's system and prospects.   So many times repeated, but 19 of 23 spots turned over in 3 years - and yet some people with their blinders on are waiting for the 'rebuild' to really begin.  Kudos to how stubborn that mindset is - it's persistence - but wadr, you can't see the forest.... Maybe you'll wake up at this year's draft, when another 6 prospects are added in the first 120 picks.

 

 

Great post, nice to see you and others get it.  Benning isn't perfect, but he's done well where it matters most, his ability to add young NHL talent.  

Eventually the stable of young players will reach a critical mass excursion into the line-up, and or traded for specific line-up requirements.  More than two guys per year is very good, four is excellent.  Well above the retirement replinishment cycle.

 

It's important to remember that these draft picks are the best among their peer group, and eventually that is the peer group that will become the entirety of the NHL with those younger than them that get drafted under the exact same cirumstances.  

 

Of course most don't become stars, but they have value both as trade bait and acquiring more picks later.  He did great in a poor draft year, looking forward to see what happens over the next three ones which have both generational and franchise players at the top....

 

 

 

[oldnews]

I think I've figured out why none of the Leafs homerz can understand what's going on in Vancouver.

It's too complicated.

The Leafs rebuild - a simple three four stage process, focussing on one thing at a time.  That way no one misunderstands what's going on.

Stage 1:

Collect all the junk contracts you can.  

Injured players, bad signings, bad contracts, bad re-signings, LTIR, don't be shy.  Clarkson, Lupul, Robidas, Komisarek, Cowen, Horton, Phaneuf, Gleason, Fehr, Kessel, Laich, Liles, Greening, Michalek  - whatever you can do to add a devalued asset or devalue an existing asset - overpay them, too much term, acquire them when they're lame  - whatever you can do to waste cap space, enhance and extend the futility of the franchise - go for it.  This is stage one. Setting the stage for stage 3.  This is the how not to, what not to do stage.  The Leafs nailed it like no other.  Bonus - it lowers expectations to literally zero.  Nothing - no standards - to live up to.

Ok, now we know what not to do.  On to the next idea.

Stage 2:

Dump and sell everything you can.

Picks, picks, picks.  Phaneuf again, Kessel again, Polak, Matthias, Spaling, Winnik, Colborne, Franson.... Picks and more picks.  This is the idea.  Bernier oops, Anderson oops, Bolland oops (don't count those, forget those).  Firesale. Get picks.  Nothing else matters.

Stick to the plan - one idea at a time.  Keep it simple.  That way the experts and analysts will understand.

Stage 3.

Most important stage.  Complete stage two - and what you can't dump, is "injured".   This is the AHL roster stage. Not really injured?  Stay home anyway.  Serviceable NHLer remains on the roster?   Nope, not any longer -  converted to a pick - or 'injured'.  Most importantly, this stage has an end: win the lottery.   Simple and key part of the plan.  Win the lottery.  Indispensible but the simplicity is genius.  Heart of the Shanaplan; the balls fall with the Leafs.  The execution was seemless.

Stage 4.  Also known as idea 4.

Sign all the 37 year olds.  All of them.  Not one.  Don't mix it up. Not two.  One idea - one singular idea - the plan - and this stage is the sign all the 37 year olds stage.  You know you're ready for this stage when you've make the playoffs once and exited in the first round.  Picks are no longer necessary - rent a 4th line center - waste a 2nd - lose him in free agency - doesn't matter.  Beyond the picks stage - on the 37 yr old stage - as long as it leads to the 37 stage,it's all good.   Keep it simple.  Hainsey - 37? Check.  Sign him.  Moore?  How old? 37?  Check. Sign him.  Marleau?  No brainer.  37!!  Any more 37 year olds out there?  Damn - Thornton turned 38 a day too early!  Pass.  3-7 - also happens to be the protection parameters of the expansion draft.  Good timing.  See how that lined up. Meant to be.

Conclusion:

The failure of the Benning plan:  couldn't keep it simple.

Too many ideas.  Overlap.  What stage are we in? = confusing.

Trades a veteran for a pick.  Skipped a stage.

Signs a free agent.  Huh?  LOL.

Trades a core player for player, pick, prospect.  Confusing.  Pick understandable.  Player?  Why?

Trades a pick for a roster player.  What?  No way.  Anti-plan.

Trades a prospect for a prospect.  That's not a pick.

Trades a veteran for a prospect.  Nope again, not a pick.

Trades a veteran for a pick?  Not sure - what stage are we in again?

Trades another veteran for a prospect.  How hard is it to understand that prospects are not picks?

Signs another free agent.  FFS.  What are they doing?  Not a PICK!

Signs another free agent.  Rest my case.

 

Most importantly - not very good at the lottery.  Didn't get the Shanaplan.

Too many ideas.   You can't rebuild with too many ideas.   Players, prospects, picks....not one thing but three things.  Wrong.

One idea at a time.

What are they doing now?  Who knows?  Which stage are they on?  Which idea are they on?  What will they do next?  No one knows.  These things work better if you do them in bunches.  Not sure why but they just do.   And, that way, TSN analysts understand.  Can't emphasize the importance of that enough.

We should be signing all the 37 year olds.

But we didn't win the lottery.

Because we failed Stage 1.  And 2......No.  Or was it 3?  Yes.  That's it.  Stage 3.  Go to stage 3. Howda rebuild.   1. idea. at. a. time.

[TheGuardian_]

As Linden stated, if it placates the fans then it is called a rebuild. Doesn't mean anything at all, it is just a word.

 

They are just continuing what they were doing before, spend to the cap so they are handcuffed for any other deals, don't make any significant trades, keep selling the idea of playoffs and hope for future improvement, hope to get lucky, be the nice guys in the NHL.

 

Hence why so many hockey pundits are befuddled when talking about the Nucks, they do one thing that seems like a rebuild and reverse what they did, got rid of vets at TDL and then replaced vets with UFA's on July 1. Still haven't re-signed Horvat and are running out of cap space.

 

 

[oldnews]

5 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

As Linden stated, if it placates the fans then it is called a rebuild. Doesn't mean anything at all, it is just a word.

 

They are just continuing what they were doing before, spend to the cap so they are handcuffed for any other deals, don't make any significant trades, keep selling the idea of playoffs and hope for future improvement, hope to get lucky, be the nice guys in the NHL.

 

Hence why so many hockey pundits are befuddled when talking about the Nucks, they do one thing that seems like a rebuild and reverse what they did, got rid of vets at TDL and then replaced vets with UFA's on July 1. Still haven't re-signed Horvat and are running out of cap space.

 

 

LOL.

no minus for the minus hunter, but a good laugh, especially at the idea they're running out of cap space.

[Rob_Zepp]

On 4/29/2017 at 1:03 PM, oldnews said:

You tell a cool revision k.o.s. and are married to your crap goggles for sure.

But, you missed the plot and fundamentally didn't understand what was unfolding before your eyes.  Context helps with those if you care for any.

You're free of course to pre-judge the results - but you're playing a fools game in doing so.

 

Now. let's get to something that actually matters.

 

The team added transitional/space filler pieces along the way - Vrbata, Miller - you appear to have a big problem with that - for who knows what reason, but it's inconsequential in the long run - which you claim to have your sights on lol.

 

The team added pieces to close a demographic gap between the departing core and the prospects just arriving or on the way.

Sutter cost Bonino - you have no real protest there.   Kesler was moved for Bonino, Sbisa, pick - converted into Gudbranson in the end - again - no real source for your protest.

In dwelling on your stubborn fixation on a tear down, you've presumed that picks would return you more than these assets.

 

Now, here's what really matters.  A team must draft and develop well throughout the rounds - not simply get a couple magic beans and not simply get volumes of lottery tickets.

In the end a team must hit with a good batting average in the draft.

 

So, let's look at the Canucks drafts of the past 3/4 years.

I'll start with the draft preceding Benning, because he has had an impact on it via the trade market.

 

2013 entry draft:

Horvat - nothing needs be said here.

Shinkaruk - dealt for Granlund - who has emerged as a middle six, 20 goal/40pt range/82g quality young roster player

Cassels - longshot, but not buried.

Subban - longshot, but reasonable opportunity.

So, while Horvat was the only real hit for Gillis here, Benning recovered a 2nd good roster player - and there is the potential of a 3rd NHLer from that draft.  Two to three NHLers out of a draft is a viable success rate for an NHL franchise.

 

2014 entry draft:

Virtanen - everyone has a crystal ball.  Green considers him an NHL player that can be effective in a lot of ways - don't see any point in prejudging this prospect - but his NHL career is still a question mark.

McCann - a late 1st with moderate NHL odds - another 1/3 of the Kesler deal that was converted into Gudbranson - again whom people are prematurely divided regarding, but like Sutter, is an NHL asset that an alternative - a draft pick - certainly doesn not guarantee. 

Demko -  certainly appears to have an NHL trajectory.

Tryamkin - definite NHL player if he wants to be.  Whether he returns is unknown.

Forsling - argue until you're blue in the face - in the end he became part of the Sutter deal - which people are divided on but is a 1/3 offshoot of the Kesler deal, +this 5th round pick.

So - there you have, out of 2014 - one NHL asset in Gudbranson / McCann / 1/3 of Kesler return, a 2nd absent NHL asset in Tryamkin (whose rights we retain), a part of an NHL asset in the conversion of the 5th into the 2nd piece in the Sutter deal, and reasonably realistic potential 2nd, and 3rd pieces in Virtanen and Demko (and a 4th lurking/depending on Tryamkin's eventual path).  Certainly a viable success rate from this draft, even at this early stage.

 

2015 entry draft:

Boeser - NHL player already

2nd rd pick = Baertschi.

Brisebois - mid to longshot

Zhukenov - longshot

Neill - midshot

Gaudette - 5th round hit - very high trajectory.

Olson - longshot

So, when your top pick is a 23rd overall, and in his draft plus 2 season he's an NHL asset - and a 2nd round pick was converted into a middle six forward (Baertschi) that is viable draft success - as are the realistic trajectories of a few other picks in this draft.  No one can really project the future of guys like Gaudette or Brisebois - but at the same time, and here's where the pretenses of the crap goggles crowd are exposed - you also can't prejudge Benning and the scouting/drafting/development elements of the franchise to be a "FAIL".  That is a negative fools game - and negativity is far too often a substitute for intelligence.

 

2016 entry draft:

There is no point attempting to project NHL trajectories beyond Juolevi, aside from saying that guys like Lockwood (a young draftee) and McKenzie had very promising plus one seasons.

However - and quite crucially - the team added an NHL player outside the draft in Stecher - who combined with Juolevi would suggest that 2016 represents another viable success rate in adding young, NHL assets to the franchise.  Griffin Molino is also a mid-shot addition.

 

Hutton and Gaunce represent the possibility that even the 2012 entry draft was reasonably viable in the end as well.

 

Now, clearly this team has not exclusively 'transitioned' through the draft.

 

Granlund, Goldobin, and Dahlen represent additional prospects - 1st and 2nd round picks - that have been added in post-draft-pick form.

 

So, to summarize - in three years:

 

Sutter, Gudbranson, Sbisa stemming all from the Kesler deal.

Hutton, Stecher, Juolevi, (Tryamkin) stemming from Canucks drafting and scouting/UFA signing. 

Baertschi, Boeser, Granlund, Goldobin....

That is a handful of 'transition' / rebuild assets added to both groups, forward and defensive - in 3 years time. 

That doesn't include assets like Demko, Dahlen, the rest of the prospect pool, or players like Molino, Gaunce - or Boucher - players on the edge of the roster.

 

Already, Benning is hitting at a rate of 3 to 4 NHL assets per year via the draft and transition/'rebuild' trades - and that is without any development trajectories within the franchise's system and prospects.   So many times repeated, but 19 of 23 spots turned over in 3 years - and yet some people with their blinders on are waiting for the 'rebuild' to really begin.  Kudos to how stubborn that mindset is - it's persistence - but wadr, you can't see the forest.... Maybe you'll wake up at this year's draft, when another 6 prospects are added in the first 120 picks.

 

 

A very nice summary of progress.

[Jiggs50]

The Dorsett and Eriksson contracts were the 2 biggest issues I've ever had with JB. Term on both was/is terrible. 

 

In terms of the rest of the rebuild I feel JB is doing pretty good. Our prospect pool is so deep. Nice change for once. 

 

[oldnews]

37 minutes ago, Jiggs50 said:

The Dorsett and Eriksson contracts were the 2 biggest issues I've ever had with JB. Term on both was/is terrible. 

 

In terms of the rest of the rebuild I feel JB is doing pretty good. Our prospect pool is so deep. Nice change for once. 

 

Dorsett's contract was a space filler contract and his presence was an example of the drive the team wants and hopes to see out of it's youth - and regardless, a healthy Dorsett is worth his contract.  His first year here he scored 25 pts as a bottom six - and brought all the energy, forechecking, hitting and willingness to fight for his team-mates in addition.  What's that worth?  Compare it to Matt Martin's extra year of term and 9 pts last season....  It's about time the huge salary gap separating quality depth players and their team-mates - who don't always bring much or any more - closed somewhat.  

The Eriksson deal was horrible last year and has the potential to remain so, but Eriksson is a player that has been known to have horrible initial adjustment seasons with new clubs - hopefully this year a healthy Eriksson and healthier lineup will translate into being closer to worth his cap hit.

[Nuxfanabroad]

On ‎2017‎年‎7‎月‎3‎日 at 11:47 PM, Sweathog said:

Do people really think that most of the pundits on TSN actually believe what they say? Of course they don't, they have to cater to their biggest market, a market that has a severe inferiority complex when it comes to the Canucks.

 

Please keep in mind that before 2 seasons ago, the Canucks were basically the Leaf's daddy for a decade. How many times did they actually beat us in those 10 years? Two, maybe three times? And to add insult to injury, the Canucks stole the Leaf's best chance at a Stanley Cup final back in '94.

 

So to appease those fans in Toronto, TSN has to do what they've been doing. Every Canuck mistake is exaggerated, every success minimized. The opposite goes for the Leafs, every success exaggerated, most mistakes ignored.

 

I don't blame TSN for doing this, it's just business.

It's true & insightful what you post. However CAN'T accept these league-lackey wh*res for how they conduct their biz. The whole world seems to have gone CNN; & then when the avg fan questions the integrity of pro sport(or it's fawning media), we have to endure random *ssWholes(yeah that's 100%), who post unoriginal 'tinfoil' tripe, pictures.

 

The whole process is tiresome, & has become pretty damned boring. That is, what used to be a highly entertaining sport.

[Crabcakes]

On 7/4/2017 at 10:12 AM, oldnews said:

I think I've figured out why none of the Leafs homerz can understand what's going on in Vancouver.

It's too complicated.

The Leafs rebuild - a simple three four stage process, focussing on one thing at a time.  That way no one misunderstands what's going on.

 

Bingo!  What the Canucks are doing is too complicated.

 

I'm not going to reprint your entertaining tome.  You're fine form these days Mr Oldnews.

[THERETOOL]

what if Eriksson has a great season ????   Our heads will all implode !!!!!      

 

One of there few failures Jim has had so far was giving Louis that deal

 

 Benning is gonna come out smelling like a rose if Eriksson  turns it around this year ..   and the truth is , I wont be surprised . 

 

Starting to have a sneaky suspicion that Jim is as dumb as a fox 

 

 

[Sweathog]

33 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

It's true & insightful what you post. However CAN'T accept these league-lackey wh*res for how they conduct their biz. The whole world seems to have gone CNN; & then when the avg fan questions the integrity of pro sport(or it's fawning media), we have to endure random *ssWholes(yeah that's 100%), who post unoriginal 'tinfoil' tripe, pictures.

 

The whole process is tiresome, & has become pretty damned boring. That is, what used to be a highly entertaining sport.

Oh yeah, I agree that it's tiresome. It's why I look at the opinions of Botchford, Price, and the rest of the sports media (especially the Toronto media) as a source of amusement. Imo they're not to be taken seriously.

[Gaudette Celly]

46 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Bingo!  What the Canucks are doing is too complicated.

 

I'm not going to reprint your entertaining tome.  You're fine form these days Mr Oldnews.

Yeah great stuff, I was actually going to post my own summary of the "Shanaplan" but he's done a more detailed and thorough job.  Here's my outline anyway:

 

Step 1:  Trade a couple of big contracts.  In return get a couple lower picks and take on cap dumps, useless/LTIR players, and long-term salary retention.

Step 2:  Sign some bottom-level UFAs, then after a predictable garbage season trade some for mid-level picks.

Step 3:  Win lottery -- rebuild officially over

Step 4:  Trade away the mid-level picks from Step 2 for rentals, and sign (multiple) UFAs in their late 30s for cup run dynasty