The Rebuild Kicked Off With Acquiring Bo, & Was Completed at 2019 Draft!

[Adarsh Sant]

8 minutes ago, oldnews said:

lol

just post a source, not a claim to have a source. 

you haven't shown that you know what Benning's thought process was.

er, uh so and so said something.

just post some actual content.

 

 

 

 

Again, you've conveniently cropped out parts of my posts so you don't have to acknowledge them.  You continue to argue on semantics. Just give it up.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Adarsh Sant

[Rob_Zepp]

2 minutes ago, Adarsh Sant said:

 

 

 

 

Again, you've conveniently cropped out parts of my posts so you don't have to acknowledge them.  You continue to argue on semantics. Just give it up.

Hmmm, a 2015 Lucic and a 2018 Lucic are quite different players.   The 2015 version seemingly could still skate at NHL level.   The 2018 version not so much.   How many more decades is he signed for?

[oldnews]

Just now, Adarsh Sant said:

 

 

 

 

 

Again, you've conveniently cropped out parts of my posts so you don't have to acknowledge them.  You continue to argue on semantics. Just give it up.

What does any of that have to do with Boeser?

You make an absurd leap from working on a trade to assuming he offered the Boeser pick?

That's not a source - it's a blind assumption with literally no credibility.

You have no idea what the substance of those negotiations were.  For all you know he offered Kevin Bieksa - who was actually otb - and Linden Vey.  Attempting to link that tweet to Boeser is laughable.  You're the one who should give it up - you have nothing there.

[Adarsh Sant]

6 minutes ago, oldnews said:

What does any of that have to do with Boeser?

You make an absurd leap from working on a trade to assuming he offered the Boeser pick?

That's not a source - it's a blind assumption with literally no credibility.

You have no idea what the substance of those negotiations were.  For all you know he offered Kevin Bieksa - who was actually otb - and Linden Vey.  Attempting to link that tweet to Boeser is laughable.  You're the one who should give it up - you have nothing there.

It's really not that hard.

 

Lucic went for a top defensive prospect and a 13th overall pick.

Benning was quoted on saying he was "working hard an in on the deal for Lucic".

 

He had to have offered something comparable to be in on the deal.

 

If you think Bieksa and Vey is comparable to a top D prospect and the 13th overall pick then you don't know anything about hockey my friend.

[oldnews]

5 minutes ago, Adarsh Sant said:

It's really not that hard.

 

Lucic went for a top defensive prospect and a 13th overall pick.

Benning was quoted on saying he was "working hard an in on the deal for Lucic".

 

He had to have offered something comparable to be in on the deal.

 

This is the dumbest of logic.

The Kings offered a 1st - and therefore Benning must have as well.

 

Laughable grounds on which you make that claim.

 

When has Benning ever dealt a 1st round pick?  What has Benning actually said about trading 1st round picks - or top prospects for that matter?  

 

You have no idea what Benning offered - you're propping up nonsense based on speculation.   The Kings also spent a 1st on Andrej Sekera.  What does that say about what Benning would offer?  As much as it does about the Lucic story you fabricate - literally nothing.  You have literally no idea what form that offer took.  If you're going to make assumptions, the far more sound assumption would be to look at the assets the Canucks actually have shopped and dealt and make an ass-umption that the pieces offered come from that pool of assets.

The fact you believe you have some substance here just goes to show how little you understand about credibility, accuracy and actual sourcing.

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by oldnews

[Rob_Zepp]

1 minute ago, Adarsh Sant said:

It's really not that hard.

 

Lucic went for a top defensive prospect and a 13th overall pick.

Benning was quoted on saying he was "working hard an in on the deal for Lucic".

 

He had to have offered something comparable to be in on the deal.

 

If you think Bieksa and Vey is comparable to a top D prospect and the 13th overall pick then you don't know anything about hockey my friend.

While it is fun to watch you two old ladies bicker, he may well have offered Bieksa and Vey as he clearly didn't come out on top.   You cannot use the winning bid as an indicator of what the other bids were as they don't get to compare.    He could have offered the rights to the Orca logo for all anyone knows or he may have offered Horvat, Boeser, Demko and the very hair gel that allows him to defy gravity.    

 

Saying the other bickerer knows nothing about hockey when he/she made a good point - is kinda silly as you don't have a clue what he offered.   Being "IN" as you like to highlight doesn't mean having a comparable offer to what was the winning bid as there is no way for him to know what that bid was until it was public.

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

While it is fun to watch you two old ladies bicker, he may well have offered Bieksa and Vey as he clearly didn't come out on top.   You cannot use the winning bid as an indicator of what the other bids were as they don't get to compare.    He could have offered the rights to the Orca logo for all anyone knows or he may have offered Horvat, Boeser, Demko and the very hair gel that allows him to defy gravity.    

 

Saying the other bickerer knows nothing about hockey when he/she made a good point - is kinda silly as you don't have a clue what he offered.   Being "IN" as you like to highlight doesn't mean having a comparable offer to what was the winning bid as there is no way for him to know what that bid was until it was public.

don't be a tool. 

 

otherwise you're making sense - but only the same kind of 'bickering' sense I was making

Edited April 12, 2018 by oldnews

[Rob_Zepp]

Just now, oldnews said:

don't be a tool. 

Then don't bicker.    

[oldnews]

Just now, Rob_Zepp said:

 

 

[TheYjUstMaKeYoUwooZy]

3 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

e

 

3 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

I don't know enough about Buffalo, Arizona, Florida & Carolina especially when it comes to their prospect pools.  Edmonton is at a completely different stage of their rebuild and a unique case considering that they have McJesus and all those top picks.  They should be a really good team and anything other than that is a failure, so their rebuild as of right now is a disaster.  We're doing better, though I'd rather want us to be compared to the best not the worst.  Also, I'd say that Edmonton's failure is how they went about building (or, not building) a team around their top picks. 

 

Vey & Eriksson are parts of a bigger picture.  IMO both terrible moves but even if they weren't bad moves, the strategy of targeting old FA's and 20something players to compete now instead of trading for picks, that's where the big failure was.  

 

My point?  Benning is great at drafting with later picks.  In a rebuild, teams load up on picks.  Every dynasty built in the cap era loaded up on picks just before their dynasty.  Trading picks away for players that will have no impact on the team by the time it's competitive, is terrible.  Simply keeping your own picks for a draft isn't rebuilding in any way.  Vancouver will be this bad for only so long, it's a rare chance to rebuild.  But instead of embracing the suck, and loading up on picks we've been hopelessly trying for the playoffs and wasting assets along the way.

 

They're not positive, they're delusional and agressive in their views as far as interacting on CDC goes.  I'm not negative, I'm realistic.  I have praised Benning when I like his moves.  

How do you figure?  The way of Arizona, Buffalo and Edmonton were to "gift" the spots to the young guys.  Not make them take the spots from mid tier regular NHL'rs.  Look how its worked out for them? 

 

Toronto had been drafting high for years and had a bunch of players NOT signed to NMC's that had some great value.  We did not.  We already traded them.  Shnieds, Lu, Kesler. 

 

I have seen the argument about "Benning is good at drafting so never trade a pick for a player" so often it blows my mind.  Drafting is talent evaluation.  How does that get thrown out the window unless your drafting? He knows which prospects are around the level of the pick he is trading and he feels the player has more upside. 

 

"Trading picks for players that will have no impact on a team when its competitive?"  Are you playing a video game?  Are we suppose to just throw rookies in and see how they do.  Don't bring them up in a competitive environment around other decent regular NHL's they can learn from?  So we just sign some loser 4th liners and sit at the bottom for 3-4 years until you get your talent and then magically in one off season build a team around them?  Toronto didn't even do that and they have BABCOCK.

 

The players we traded picks for have a chance at being a lot better than the picks we traded.  When our new core makes these players redundant we can then TRADE them for more draft picks to KEEP the cupboards full.  Heck if we let them develop enough we might even get BETTER picks than we used to get them.  

 

You are not realistic in any way.  And the way you think makes me believe you have no clue about personal, player or athlete development.  

Edited April 12, 2018 by TheYjUstMaKeYoUwooZy

[Baggins]

11 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

 

What’s so different to that scenario and what actually happened.

 

75 points

63 points

73 points. 

 

Yes we we had some injuries but this team in the last 3 years has been AHL caliber filled with AHL players. Megna, chaput, Boucher, Larsen, vey, skille, Prust, shore, etem, cracknell, bartkowski

 

Heck this year poor Brock was left the wolves expected to carry this team as a rookie. 

Some injuries? Lmao!

 

What did we have to replace the aging vets moved out? Would it have been better move them all and be left with nothing but Megna's and Chaputs to make up the roster? it would have been poor anybody we added as a rookie without any injuries.

 

You can't control injuries. Key players and the length of their injuries left little in the way of options. That's the simple reality.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

4 hours ago, Baggins said:

Some injuries? Lmao!

 

What did we have to replace the aging vets moved out? Would it have been better move them all and be left with nothing but Megna's and Chaputs to make up the roster? it would have been poor anybody we added as a rookie without any injuries.

 

You can't control injuries. Key players and the length of their injuries left little in the way of options. That's the simple reality.

No you can’t control injuries. But the point is. We ended up with the same results. An ahl caliber team with little to shelter the rookies. 

[Baggins]

21 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

No you can’t control injuries. But the point is. We ended up with the same results. An ahl caliber team with little to shelter the rookies. 

Crap happens. At least they tried. Would have been better to start with that and get worse from there with injuries? Doesn't matter how you spin it, they did what they could control.

[spur1]

2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

No you can’t control injuries. But the point is. We ended up with the same results. An ahl caliber team with little to shelter the rookies. 

I think you misunderstand what it is sheltering a rookie. 

You can have a losing team and still shelter a rookie. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

8 hours ago, TheYjUstMaKeYoUwooZy said:

 

How do you figure?  The way of Arizona, Buffalo and Edmonton were to "gift" the spots to the young guys.  Not make them take the spots from mid tier regular NHL'rs.  Look how its worked out for them? 

 

How has that worked out. 

Mcdavid is back to back art Ross winner

hall was just under a p/pg

eberle was a 60 point player 

RNH is a 55 point player

leon is a 70 point player. 

 

I guess yak didn’t work out.

 

oilers player do develop into top nhlers. They just don’t know how to build a core around them. And they don’t know how to get value back in a trade. Give the oilers a gm that knows how to get value in a trade and this is a completely different discussion. 

 

 

Quote

Toronto had been drafting high for years and had a bunch of players NOT signed to NMC's that had some great value.  We did not.  We already traded them.  Shnieds, Lu, Kesler. 

Yeah like kessel, dion, Clarkson lupul those dang players with no NMC’s. Oh wait.  I’m curious to who these players with great value were. Care to point out any names that got traded and brought back that value. 

 

Kesler was traded by JB not prior and he got better value than what Phil the thrill got. 

 

Quote

 

I have seen the argument about "Benning is good at drafting so never trade a pick for a player" so often it blows my mind.  Drafting is talent evaluation.  How does that get thrown out the window unless your drafting? He knows which prospects are around the level of the pick he is trading and he feels the player has more upside. 

“Why isnt anyone taking Lind? “

 

Seems like he doesn’t know what prospects are around at the level of the pick. Had he traded that second away last year, he wouldn’t have had the opportunity to take the player he didn’t expect to be there. 

 

 

Quote

"Trading picks for players that will have no impact on a team when its competitive?"  Are you playing a video game?  Are we suppose to just throw rookies in and see how they do. 

 

What did Vancouver do this year to fill holes and help the rookies from being rushed. How many picks did vanek, gagner, burmistrov Nilsson cost us?  How many rosters spot did we fill this year due to trading away picks?  

 

Quote

Don't bring them up in a competitive environment around other decent regular NHL's they can learn from?  So we just sign some loser 4th liners and sit at the bottom for 3-4 years until you get your talent and then magically in one off season build a team around them?  Toronto didn't even do that and they have BABCOCK.

 

You just finished saying Toronto had been picking high for years. 

 

 

Quote

The players we traded picks for have a chance at being a lot better than the picks we traded

 

Based on what, a crystal ball? The only thing they had a better chance was is playing a Nhl game. They has nothing to do with the quality of the player they’d become. 

 

Quote

  When our new core makes these players redundant we can then TRADE them for more draft picks to KEEP the cupboards full. 

 

Oh that’s the plan. Why didn’t we do that with etem, vey, Larsen prust

 

Quote

 

Heck if we let them develop enough we might even get BETTER picks than we used to get them.  

 

Whick player is worth more value than the pick we gave up?  I’ll wait. 

 

 

Quote

You are not realistic in any way.  And the way you think makes me believe you have no clue about personal, player or athlete development.  

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

5 minutes ago, spur1 said:

I think you misunderstand what it is sheltering a rookie. 

You can have a losing team and still shelter a rookie. 

Is that what we did with McCann?

 

of course you can. But is what has happened?

[Darius]

8 hours ago, oldnews said:

 

The fact you believe you have some substance here just goes to show how little you understand about credibility, accuracy and actual sourcing.

 

But oldnews, dont you know that speculation generated by angry teens on HFBOARDS is a legit source???

[The_Rocket]

Scuze the long post:

 

In hindsight, building a team for the 2014-2015 season that would compete for the playoffs was probably a mistake, and the Canucks should have started to tear down that season. They would obviously be farther along in the rebuild by now had they done so. But there are plenty of reasons why they instead decided to add free agents and have core that could compete “now”:

 

1) the 2013-2014 Canucks were not actually that bad (compared to the current Canucks). 

 

Up until January that team was on pace for well over 100 points and cruising to first place in the division. Then luongo got injured and they were playing Eddie lack and Joacim Eriksson in net (remember him?) and they lost a game in Anaheim 9-1 which was the turning point of the season. The wheels came off, and the Canucks finished the rest of the year with one of their worst stretches in the past 5 years. Yes, they were worse in the back half of the 2014 season than they were when they came 29th last season. The team was noticeably dejected and it spawned turmoil in the locker room. That teams season was very similar to the Calgary Flames this season. 

 

2) the Sedins were still very good. 

 

In the 2014-2015 season, both Sedins were in the Top 10 of league scoring. This was a bounce back from the previous year where they were cold for the entire second half of the season. New GM JB got rid of the parts of the core that we’re bringing down the locker room (Kesler, Luongo), and replaced them with new pieces (Vrbata, Miller, Bonino). The team looked very similar to the one that won the Northwest in 2013, and they proved it by making the playoffs as a one-and-done team. This success was on the back of the Sedins and their brand new contracts. Basically, why rebuild when you still have two of the top players in the league in your team?

 

3) pressure to win

 

the Canucks hadn’t been consistently bad since the late 90’s. The transition from west coast express era to the Sedins era was quite seamless, thanks to core players being drafted throughout the first half of the 2000’s. A few bumpy seasons thrown in (looking at you 2008), but not real bottoming out. Resistance to tearing down a team which successfully transitioned between two cores very recently is understandable, even though we now know the long term impact was negative. 

 

4) Lack of players to defer to

 

even if JB wanted to transition to a new core, there was no one for him to move to. The Canucks had 1 blue chip prospect when he took over, Bo horvat. Young players like Kassian, Kenins, Stanton, Lack, vey, etc. Have all flamed out. He had nothing in the pipeline to switch too. This probably should have been a sign to blow it up, but instead they attempted to delay the inevitable through FA signings and acquiring roster players with the Kesler trade. In hindsight, a mistake, but at the time it showed a desire to win and take advantage of a team that featured Daniel and Henrik Sedin. 

 

Honestly, I’d say that since the 2015 draft this team has been focused on rebuilding, even if they won’t admit it. They signed free agents after realizing rushing prospects like Virtanen, McCann, and Hutton can stall their developments. The only bad move since then, really, was the LE signing. 

 

“Stealth” rebuild is a fitting title, as JB has slowly phased out the old core, acquiring transitional players like baertschi, Gudbransen, Sutter to fill age gaps and maybe still be around when the team is ready to compete again. He hasn’t blown it up. His biggest trade was his first one, which was Kesler demanding out. No Tanev deal, no miller deal, no vrbata Hamhuis etc. Only 1 first round pick ever traded, and that was the Kesler trade. The transition from competitor to bottom feeder was 2012-2016 and featured multiple regime changes and coaching changes. It wasn’t an immediate drop like the rangers did this year. It was delayed, and now we are slowly being dragged out by good drafting, and not making panick moves (other than LE).

 

It’s the long way of doing it, rather than a quick oilers style tear down which results in a young core that is not ready to

compete and can’t make the playoffs, and then needs to be rebuilt again. 

[189lb enforcers?]

11 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Yeah, those 3 teams are the ones to copy.  They all had top picks, they all loaded up on picks, and they all had great management that built a winner around those top players.  The lottery system has changed, the way to build a winner has not.  There will always be anomalies like Boston, I don't think the goal should be to copy the least likely way to win.  

In 2016 we had a total of 2 picks in the first 4 rounds.  If you think that's going full rebuild, we have nothing further to discuss as far as hockey goes.

 

Yes, and you realize the Canucks got VERY lucky to get a player like Boeser late in the 1st round?  

Just like Chicago did with Keith.

Like LA did with Kopitar.

Those teams also got top players at or near the top of the draft, hopefully we did as well with Pettersson.  

You have to be good AND lucky.  

Imagine how much better our prospect pool would be if went into drafts with 3 or 4 2nd round picks, instead of 0. 

Good. 

Edited April 12, 2018 by 189lb enforcers?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

 

23 minutes ago, Canadian Clay said:

3) pressure to win

 

Good post clay. I think your #3 point really hits the nail on the head. The owners were used to seeing the dollars rolling in fell consecutive playoff years and they likely didn’t want to see that end. They already had struggles with tickets and probably didn’t want it to get worse. At the time teams were able to go through a transition phase and introduce a new core will still making the playoffs. The Detroit model was constantly quoted as the model to build.

 

The problem was, the game was changing. There was more parity among the league and making the playoffs was getting harder and harder. Making the playoffs is not a given with any team anymore. Last year NSH was the 16th seed. This year they won the PT.  

 

Expecting to be in the playoffs every single year isn’t realistic anymore and trying to achieve that can really hinder your future. The good news is it seems that everyone is now on the same page. When asked about expectations playoffs isn’t even mentioned. It’s now we just want to continue to see growth in our young players. Which is the key.