Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

What Are Your Thoughts of What A Rebuild Is?


TheGuardian_

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Sedintwinpowersactivate said:

But if you have cap space you can steal other teams prospects that run into cap problems.  Like Arizona or Carolina have done recently.  Carolina got TT from the Hawks if I remember correctly.  

 

Considering the Carolina trade happened prior to the draft, meaning before any ufa's were signed, we had the cap space for that deal. Those deals typically happen in the offseason when cap space isn't really a problem. You don't often see those deals happen during the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not aiming for the playoffs instead of purging at the TDL.

That was year one.

 

Its not botching the Hammer type trade opportunities or making more.

 

Its not signing guys to play all the gravy while the offensive kids play defensive shifts. 

 

Its not gifting ice time to players like Edler or the Sedins, especially on the PP.

 

Its not going through a coach every few years.

 

Its not going into consecutive drafts with less picks in the top 100 than teams who are actually competing for a cup.

 

Its not signing a star goalie in Ryan Miller. 

 

I'm too bored to keep going. The first 2.5 years of the SlimJim plan were so bad, they couldn't even bottom out right. Not that it would have mattered much because they hadn't made acquiring picks a mandate anyways. They were actually pacing teams like Chicago in rebuild speeds; one first round pick at a time. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Some Canuck fans wanted a REBUILD full on tank job

Canuck Management / Ownership  wanted a  RELOAD REBUILD while trying to remain competitive

 

Now we all need some RELIEF from the split personality rebuild our Club has been going through. 

Fixed that for you. ::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team is finally getting to a point where there is depth again, albeit not as much as we need. I'd rather a team with substance that can compete year in and year out than a team with one player that is of such importance *cough*Montreal*cough that if they get injured, the team is hooped. The best Canucks teams of the past have always been the sum of all their parts, not one sided. We do need an impact player on the front end though, that is a given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Green Building said:

More or less what we're doing at the moment, from stop gap UFA's playing alongside rookies to the crazy impatient fans.

well they need to do MORE....!!! and the reason the fans are impatient is because of the lack of a clear direction with this rebuild...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jam126 said:

I would rather be on the road to a high pick with a bunch of vets than destroying the young guys' confidence.

I would rather be on the road to a high pick with a bunch of younger players that show up every game and give 100 % in both ends of the rink. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much rubbish.  Why do so many assume that top picks automatically become great players.  1st OA Yakupov is a player only the worst team in the league will touch and there are plenty of other examples.  Every year there is at least one top 10 pick who never makes it to the NHL

 

Development is at least as important as pedigree.  More so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

I would rather be on the road to a high pick with a bunch of younger players that show up every game and give 100 % in both ends of the rink. 

Losing does not automatically equate to a lack of effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definition of rebuild

rebuilt play \-ˈbilt\; rebuilding
transitive verb
1 a :to make extensive repairs to :reconstruct
  • rebuild a war-torn city
b :to restore to a previous state
  • rebuild inventories
2 :to make extensive changes in :remodel
  • rebuild society

 

 

Repaired?  No.  Restored?  No.  Extensive changes?  Yes.  So by the definition of the word, the Canucks are rebuilding.  Although by that definition every sports team is always rebuilding.  The Penguins are just as different to their 2011 team as we are to ours.  

 

As far as hockey goes though, you rebuild through the draft.  Rebuilding through free agency became ineffective when the salary cap came in and you couldn't buy a quality team.  So to qualify as a rebuilding hockey team, you have to have more picks than your competitors (while doing other things too of course).  Simply keeping your picks is treading water, trading your picks away is done for instant results at the cost of long term success.  So let's take a look at Vancouver's rebuild.  

Capture.JPG.eb8717c260d25b2912a0de9ae3c04b3b.JPG

In 2014 Kesler asked for a trade which got us a 1st round pick, a situation that was out of Benning's hands with the asked trade.

In 2017 got an extra 2nd round pick for Columbus hiring Torts from us, again a situation that was out of Benning's hands.  

The other two years we were down a 2nd round pick.

Since Benning got hired, on average we haven't added/subtracted overall in the first 3 rounds.  

If Benning managed to put together a competitive team we wouldn't even have top prospects in Pettersson and Juolevi.  So I don't see how you can call this a rebuild.

 

An old team becoming younger?  Not a rebuild if all those young players added are fringe top 6 forwards or top 4 d.  

The only way for this type of 'rebuild' to be successful is if Benning drafts better than almost any other GM.  Maybe long term it could prove to be true, but so far only Tryamkin and Boeser have shown NHL quality talent in 4 years of drafting.  I gave Benning more of a shot than I did to Gillis when he got hired, but because of what I have seen I'm the biggest Benning hater now.

 

I guess on a positive note.  I've been saying from the start that Benning will build a decent team (I thought this year or next year) that in the end isn't a true Cup competitor because it doesn't have top end talent.  In that way I've been wrong, this team is still just awful and it's only a matter of time until we draft the next superstar.  I just wish Benning would load up on picks like GM's in a proper rebuild do.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Losing does not automatically equate to a lack of effort.

I think JB tried to address lack of scoring with the UFA 's he picked up this year.

 

In my opinion i would have rather picked up more grit and hard to play against types.. Or used that type of player from our AHL team.

Losing with players that are easy to play against is not the kind of team i want to pay to see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rebuild is when a team doesn't sign multiple vets over the summer and instead brings in some of their young talent they have drafted.

 

If they don't have young talent that are ready for the NHL, then wtf were they doing for the past 3-4years?!?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kingofsurrey said:

I think JB tried to address lack of scoring with the UFA 's he picked up this year.

 

In my opinion i would have rather picked up more grit and hard to play against types.. Or used that type of player from our AHL team.

Losing with players that are easy to play against is not the kind of team i want to pay to see. 

So watch another team. Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

So much rubbish.  Why do so many assume that top picks automatically become great players.  1st OA Yakupov is a player only the worst team in the league will touch and there are plenty of other examples.  Every year there is at least one top 10 pick who never makes it to the NHL

 

Development is at least as important as pedigree.  More so

Development is crucial to almost every player's success for sure, but pedigree trumps it.  No matter how good you develop anyone else you draft, they're never going to be like McDavid or Matthews because of their pedigree.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, smithers joe said:

our rebuild will be when pettersson, dahlin, gaudette, lind, gadjovich, juolevi, virtanen, boeser and demko, are ready to take over the leadership and mantle of the team. those rebuilding pieces are not ready to do that yet. it will probably take 2 more years before these players are ready for prime time. 

the sedins, edler, ericksson, gagner, vanek, dorsett, horvat, granlund, baertschi, sutter and markstrom are trying to be competitive until the the building pieces are ready. 

Longer then 2 years that's extremely optimistic. We aren't trying to be 2013 Edmonton here. We have decent prospects yes, but many of them will take 3-4 years before they make an impact. I think Gaudette will learn fast though and make it in year 2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Adarsh Sant said:

A rebuild is when a team doesn't sign multiple vets over the summer and instead brings in some of their young talent they have drafted.

 

If they don't have young talent that are ready for the NHL, then wtf were they doing for the past 3-4years?!?!?

You'd figure since we've been supposedly rebuilding for that long and since Benning is a genius at drafting we'd have at least 3 or 4 really good rookies in that time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

1) It's not aiming for the playoffs instead of purging at the TDL.

That was year one.

 

2) Its not botching the Hammer type trade opportunities or making more.

 

3) Its not signing guys to play all the gravy while the offensive kids play defensive shifts. 

 

4) Its not gifting ice time to players like Edler or the Sedins, especially on the PP.

 

5) Its not going through a coach every few years.

 

6) Its not going into consecutive drafts with less picks in the top 100 than teams who are actually competing for a cup.

 

7) Its not signing a star goalie in Ryan Miller. 

 

I'm too bored to keep going. The first 2.5 years of the SlimJim plan were so bad, they couldn't even bottom out right. Not that it would have mattered much because they hadn't made acquiring picks a mandate anyways. They were actually pacing teams like Chicago in rebuild speeds; one first round pick at a time. 

 

 

1) It's staying competitive so you don't foster a losing culture (like Edmonton's for many years). 

 

2) It's not trading away veterans if there's no deal to be made. Particularly when the veteran has some control over when or if they're traded. 

 

3, 4, 7) It's protecting your young players, not throwing them to the wolves. Let them develop properly or you end up with #1 - a losing culture. 

 

5) I agree that the Torts signing was a nightmare. 

 

6) It's trading high risk, low-round picks for high-reward prospects like Baertschi and Granlund. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Exactly.  Those guys are most often the real difference between having a mediocre team and a Cup level team.  I think Pettersson is the real deal, but we need more.  I hope we get lucky (and we deserve to) and get Dahlin.  

Deserves got nothing to do with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alflives said:

True, but It’s those top picks that really make the difference IMHAO.  JB can’t be missing on those.

You cannot really rely on the consensus picks by everybody else because they could be wrong while other pick could end up being better than the consensus pick.    You see what is on your roster and you feel that it is the very area it's more needful than the other area and you make the call.   You also look ahead to next draft and see if it would fill up your needs.  If MT was picked by Benning ahead of OJ, do you really think that he might succeed with Willie Desjardin's philosophy by not playing their young like he did with Horvat?   I do not even think that MT will succeed with WD's system that they stay together as a group, not cheating ahead like Goldy did?   His point output will be lower than if he is with Flames and be sent to Junior if he does not succeed with WD's system.  I personally have doubt.  Benning saw that what he did to Jake Virtenan and decided that a long term development is more important because he knew that WD will not be the coach for long.    2 years ago, Hutton's preseason performance was a lot better until WD destroyed his confidence with his system.  He did not encourage Hutton's style and forced him to adjust to WD's style.   So the coach has a big role by influencing GM's drafting strategy by keeping his job and giving him one extra year with his picks.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...