Benning, Goldobin, and a logjam of forwards?

[appleboy]

Time will prove who is right and wrong. So far those who wanted a full blown tank job from day one were right. The very first year in was the time to capitalize on assets. That team went on to get 101 points and had enough players who could have been moved..  At that time their value was at the highest point.

I believe we went out to Calgary in 4 straight. At that point their value went way down.

 

The TANKERS have been right all along.     

[appleboy]

TANKERS one OWNERS a big 0

[oldnews]

Just now, appleboy said:

Time will prove who is right and wrong. So far those who wanted a full blown tank job from day one were right. The very first year in was the time to capitalize on assets. That team went on to get 101 points and had enough players who could have been moved..  At that time their value was at the highest point.

I believe we went out to Calgary in 4 straight. At that point their value went way down.

 

The TANKERS have been right all along.     

 

Really?  That's ironic. 

The first year in (assuming you're referring to Benning's first year here) was actually the worst time for this franchise to attempt a "tear down" - for a number of reasons.

[appleboy]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

 

Really?  That's ironic. 

The first year in (assuming you're referring to Benning's first year here) was actually the worst time for this franchise to attempt a "tear down" - for a number of reasons.

Oh please enlighten us.

[appleboy]

Linden says a rebuild would not be fair to the Sedin's. 

Meaning that we have 14 mil tied up in two players for 4 more years and the owner will not let us rebuild this club.

[oldnews]

20 minutes ago, appleboy said:

Oh please enlighten us.

Who is the "us" you're referring to? 

 

I'm me, you're you - I'm not playing any "we" / "us" games appleboy.

 

 

Two reasons you're wrong on two counts here.

 

First - the time to capitalize on assets was absolutely not in year one of Benning.  It was before Tortorella blew his head gasket and left this team with an entire roster, from top to bottom - whose value was at an all time low.  It was also better - and equally unrealistic, in year two when the team rehabilitated some of value of it's "stale and declining" core and continued to transition on the same pace they've done so throughout.

Correction - UFA Mike Santorelli's value was never higher than year one - virtually everyone else = career worst seasons.

 

Second - dreaming about 'tear downs' are dramatic and all, but when you have a half dozen core players - all with full NTCs and NMCs, at or over 30 years of age - most of them coming off career worst seasons.....what a cool story to think you can just tear it all down willy-nilly, get a collective waive from them all, find suitors and get returns on them all.... Really, only Edler and Hansen beyond that group were in the 27/28 yr range - Edler will full control over his movement, and Hansen eventually being dealt for Goldbobin. 

If people are serious about pretending alternative courses, they need to look at actual context - at the time - and look realistically at the potential 'alternative' returns.

 

Not only was the 'tear down' a pipe dream, but the team also had next to nothing to move into the vast majority of those 'openings'.  Shinkaruk was considered by many to be the team's best prospect.  What a loss!   If only they'd created spaces for the Shinkaruks and Subbans. 

And the team missed out on draft position for a year, getting 'stuck'  with Brock Boeser.  What an epic "loss".

Anyhow, it's a cool story, but only when you abstract it out of context, into something that bears no resemblance to reality at the time.

 

 

 

[appleboy]

9 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Who is the "us" you're referring to? 

 

I'm me, you're you - I'm not playing any "we" / "us" games appleboy.

 

 

Two reasons you're wrong on two counts here.

 

First - the time to capitalize on assets was absolutely not in year one of Benning.  It was before Tortorella blew his head gasket and left this team with an entire roster, from top to bottom - whose value was at an all time low.  It was also better - and equally unrealistic, in year two when the team rehabilitated some of value of it's "stale and declining" core and continued to transition on the same pace they've done so throughout.

Correction - UFA Mike Santorelli's value was never higher than year one - virtually everyone else = career worst seasons.

 

Second - dreaming about 'tear downs' are dramatic and all, but when you have a half dozen core players - all with full NTCs and NMCs, at or over 30 years of age - most of them coming off career worst seasons.....what a cool story to think you can just tear it all down willy-nilly, get a collective waive from them all, find suitors and get returns on them all.... Really, only Edler and Hansen beyond that group were in the 27/28 yr range - Edler will full control over his movement, and Hansen eventually being dealt for Goldbobin. 

If people are serious about pretending alternative courses, they need to look at actual context - at the time - and look realistically at the potential 'alternative' returns.

 

Not only was the 'tear down' a pipe dream, but the team also had next to nothing to move into the vast majority of those 'openings'.  Shinkaruk was considered by many to be the team's best prospect.  What a loss!   If only they'd created spaces for the Shinkaruks and Subbans. 

And the team missed out on draft position for a year, getting 'stuck'  with Brock Boeser.  What an epic "loss".

Anyhow, it's a cool story, but only when you abstract it out of context, into something that bears no resemblance to reality at the time.

 

 

 

First off we are talking about Benning and Lindens tenor not Gillis. That's a hole different story.

The best time for Benning was the trade deadline of their first year. Benning said he had no problem asking players to waive and as we all know many did. They never even tried because it was not the owners agenda. Same deal for Gillis. This club has needed a proper rebuild since 2013. It is getting very old.

[appleboy]

Here is what is going to happen this preseason. Players like Pettersson, Dahlen , Lind , Gaudette and Juolevi will be some of the best players in camp. They will outplay many of the vets yet because of the logjam the kids will go to Utica.

[Salacious Crumb]

1 minute ago, appleboy said:

Here is what is going to happen this preseason. Players like Pettersson, Dahlen , Lind , Gaudette and Juolevi will be some of the best players in camp. They will outplay many of the vets yet because of the logjam the kids will go to Utica.

Does your crystal ball also know that if that happens will trades or injuries mean those rooks wind up playing meaningful roles on the team next season.

 

Your turn of words “many of the vets” is absurd. Really? Many?

[oldnews]

36 minutes ago, appleboy said:

 

The best time for Benning was the trade deadline of their first year. Benning said he had no problem asking players to waive and as we all know many did. They never even tried because it was not the owners agenda.

?

What?

No, of course a tear-down was never in the owner's agenda / interest. 

I think you're conflating what ownership's priorities were and what Benning's task and process was under the circumstances.  Not sure what you expected of Benning, but if it was a tear-down in year one, imo that's a pipe dream.

 

They dealt Garrison and Kesler.

They dealt Bieksa and Lack.  And Bonino.

They dealt Burrows and Hansen.

They tried to deal a broken-faced Hamhuis.  They tried to deal an indifferent Vrbata.  Higgins. Prust etc no trade value due to injuries.

They dealt Vanek, and Holm.

All they did not deal - was a pair of 35+ Sedins with NMCs and 14 million contracts - and Alex Edler - with a full NTC.

 

What they did not do was "tear down" - which apparently you equate with "rebuild".  Irrelevent semantic pseudo-equivalencies.

 

What you're missing in your fixation on a cookie-cutter tear-down - is reality.

[Rob_Zepp]

21 minutes ago, appleboy said:

First off we are talking about Benning and Lindens tenor not Gillis.

22 minutes ago, appleboy said:

That's a hole different story.

22 minutes ago, appleboy said:

This club has needed a proper rebuild since 2013. It is getting very old.

Boeser, Horvat, Virtanen, Guddy, Stecher, Baer, Granlund, OJ, EP and several others are retiring this year - will be a helluva ceremony.   Even odds only 1/2 of them use their walkers which will be inspiring.

[Gaudette Celly]

9 hours ago, aGENT said:

The team has zero 'contractual issues' and it's pretty funny that we're assembling such a deep pool of prospects given we've 'delayed' the rebuild 3 years. That's quite the squared circle.

Then with J.D. Burke claiming the team's moves have put them "4-5 years back", that means we're now at the equivalent of 2010.

 

President's trophy and SCF next year!

[canucksnihilist]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

Nice try - but even more exceedingly weak.  I guess you're hoping no one actually looks at those sources.

 

The first article = not a single reference to "retool".

 

The second, you have an interpretation from JOSHUA CLIPPERTON who thinks what they're doing is a 'retool on the fly' -  no quote - certainly no quote from management.

 

Weak stuff.

 

When did this management group ever call it a "retool"?  Apparently you heard them say that.?

 

 

Here's what Benning actually said in the second article:

"Going forward now, young players are important," said Benning, who commended the Flames for having impact rookies in their series. "That's what we're looking to do. We know we're getting a little bit older, but we want to bring in young players to supplement the energy and skill level of our whole group."

Making that happen could be easier said than done. The Canucks have a number of veterans with no-trade clauses in contracts that were signed by the previous management regime. Benning asked former defenceman Jason Garrison, who was eventually dealt, to waive his no-trade clause last summer, while disgruntled forward Ryan Kesler was also moved.

Benning said he wouldn't hesitate to make the same call again, but added it's a difficult situation.

"When you go to a player and you approach him to do that, then they have all the leverage and they decide which teams they want to go to," the GM said. "Right now, we're just digesting what happened in the series and in the season and we'll figure that out going forward."

 

Any quote from Linden or Benning where they call it a "retool".

Should be a simple and easy enough task.

 

you are right, I cannot find any quotes where he says the word retool.

 

however, everyone who covered him in 2015 does think that is what he meant.  A debate about that is just about semantics, which is pure sophistry - your point that the word retool doesn't show up in a quote by him means nothing.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/canucks-look-to-retool-not-rebuild-after-elimination-from-playoffs/article24178879/

 

https://nationalpost.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks-plan-to-retool-on-the-fly-not-go-into-rebuild-mode

 

when asked about these kinds of things, they talked around it, but basically said they were not rebuilding.  I don't know how you missed that!  

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Then with J.D. Burke claiming the team's moves have put them "4-5 years back", that means we're now at the equivalent of 2010.

 

President's trophy and SCF next year!

I honestly don't know how people square these circles? Somehow we have amassed a veritable wall of prospects despite only rebuilding for 1.25 years apparently (most of whom were acquired/drafted prior to that 1.25 years amazingly!). 

 

And somehow signing high quality bottom 6 players to shelter these talented top 6 kids that we have (or don't we because we've not been rebuilding apparently...it's so confusing...) is going to set the rebuild back, yet again.

 

Well gee golly willikers, I sure hope Benning keeps 'screwing up' this 'not a rebuild' because this rebuild looks to be doing great!

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, canucksnihilist said:

A debate about that is just about semantics,  

Aaaah now we're getting somewhere!

 

I can't fathom why anyone cares what you call it. But to deny 'whatever-it-is' has been happening since Benning moved Kesler and Garrison at/ahead of the 14 draft and ignore the mountains of prospects from between that period and 1.25 years ago when you folks are claiming the 'whatever-it-is' actually started is just plain daft.

 

All the other periphery stuff about signing vets etc is just that. Periphery. There's no rules that say you can't do both ('whatever-it-is' and try to ice an actual NHL team not full of Megna's) at the same time.

 

You may not like how they 'whatever-it-is'd' but denying it happened or or claiming it only started 1.25 years ago is again, daft.

 

And 'They could have moved the Sedins and Edler!!!' Come on  Let's try and keep our feet on the ground here.

[canucksnihilist]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Aaaah now we're getting somewhere!

 

I can't fathom why anyone cares what you call it. But to deny 'whatever-it-is' has been happening since Benning moved Kesler and Garrison at/ahead of the 14 draft and ignore the mountains of prospects from between that period and 1.25 years ago when you folks are claiming the 'whatever-it-is' actually started is just plain daft.

 

All the other periphery stuff about signing vets etc is just that. Periphery. There's no rules that say you can't do both ('whatever-it-is' and try to ice an actual NHL team not full of Megna's) at the same time.

 

You may not like how they 'whatever-it-is'd' but denying it happened or or claiming it only started 1.25 years ago is again, daft.

 

And 'They could have moved the Sedins and Edler!!!' Come on  Let's try and keep our feet on the ground here.

 

Draft picks were traded away the first few years for players who were older and could help the team compete for a playoff spot.  so the "whatever-it-is" started once that had failed.  Of course there were some gains there as far as young players, not everything was traded away for older players that could 'win now".  but a sizeable number of picks were traded just for that purpose.

 

I know you retroactively see a plan, and that is great - but justifying actions post-hoc and seeing the plan before things happen and see if it works or not - that is a whole other story.

1.  I don't see any posts from you or anybody in 2015 or 2016 about how the plan was to try to make the playoffs for a few years and then start to rebuild by trading away players at the deadline.  The plan was to keep making the playoffs.  And it failed.  I think it is so obvious.  I would be shocked if most people here don't agree with that point at least.

2. Can you tell me the plan for the next few years so that when it changes at least we can agree it was a failed plan, and if it succeeds then we can agree it succeeded?

 

Trading away the Sedins and Edler is exactly what was needed a few years ago to really jump start a rebuild.  but as the team wasn't rebuilding, they didn't do it.  If you think otherwise, we can just disagree on that, but stranger things have happened.  If Gretzky can get traded, so can anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, canucksnihilist said:

 

Draft picks were traded away the first few years for players who were older and could help the team compete for a playoff spot.  so the "whatever-it-is" started once that had failed.  Of course there were some gains there as far as young players, not everything was traded away for older players that could 'win now".  but a sizeable number of picks were traded just for that purpose.

 

I know you retroactively see a plan, and that is great - but justifying actions post-hoc and seeing the plan before things happen and see if it works or not - that is a whole other story.

1.  I don't see any posts from you or anybody in 2015 or 2016 about how the plan was to try to make the playoffs for a few years and then start to rebuild by trading away players at the deadline.  The plan was to keep making the playoffs.  And it failed.  I think it is so obvious.  I would be shocked if most people here don't agree with that point at least.

2. Can you tell me the plan for the next few years so that when it changes at least we can agree it was a failed plan, and if it succeeds then we can agree it succeeded?

 

Trading away the Sedins and Edler is exactly what was needed a few years ago to really jump start a rebuild.  but as the team wasn't rebuilding, they didn't do it.  If you think otherwise, we can just disagree on that, but stranger things have happened.  If Gretzky can get traded, so can anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even given what you have said, JB has accomplished building an amazing group of very talented young players, right?  

[oldnews]

48 minutes ago, canucksnihilist said:

you are right, I cannot find any quotes where he says the word retool.

 

however, everyone who covered him in 2015 does think that is what he meant.  A debate about that is just about semantics, which is pure sophistry - your point that the word retool doesn't show up in a quote by him means nothing.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/canucks-look-to-retool-not-rebuild-after-elimination-from-playoffs/article24178879/

 

https://nationalpost.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks-plan-to-retool-on-the-fly-not-go-into-rebuild-mode

 

when asked about these kinds of things, they talked around it, but basically said they were not rebuilding.  I don't know how you missed that!  

 

 

Yeah, if I were to have interpreted it as, or called it a 'rebuild' - it wouldn't make it so.  That's not what they called it, and neither did they call it a 'retool' - nor does a characterization of a 'retool' necessarily represent.

 

I never took what they were doing to mean either "retool" or "tear down".  Imo it was never as simple as either of those things.

 

To me, retool means to trade a key asset or two with the intention of returning to uptick - to return to contending - in order to extend a contending period, or avoid an eventual 'rebuild'.  What management was actually saying - was not that - and far more divided/hedged.  Realistically, the time to 'retool' was in 2013  - when they started a process of dealing players like Schneider (so there'd be something in the pipeline) - and Luongo.   At that point, the Sedins were still close to ppg players,  Hansen, Burrows, Kesler, Bieksa, Hamhuis, etc = still productive players on the edges of their prime - ie marketable 'retool' assets.  That is when you 'retool' - when you at least have some miles left on your foundational assets and can get the kind of value for players that makes sense, at the right time, before they decline.

[It might be worth adding here that at some point in the above range of time, there developed a clear disconnect between Gillis and ownership, which evolved into one of the most bizarre stages of team history - with a seemingly neutered GM, a coach hired that was clearly not of his choosing, and a team pulling in opposing directions.  Far more 'confusing' than what Benning was doing in his early years - and I think that was actually a far more critical and costly rething time than the first couple years of Benning's tenure, when the balancing of prioriities towards the future finally started to prevail.   I have to wonder what kind of dynamic lead to LInden leaving - but at least the timing, damage and implications should be far lesser.]

 

The 'opposing' term - rebuild - for many here means the equivalent of a tear-down - or tank show.  That imo was also not realistic at the point of Benning,  or even advisable under the circumstances.

 

I don't thiink many people really tuned in to what they were actually intending - aided in large part by a considerable lack of will to understand, and an either/or mentality in media, who also could not compute what it was they were doing - it didn't really fit in either cateogry above.  Call it a 'continuing retool', or a 'slow rebuild' - whatever - what really matters is what they actually did, which wasn't really either of the categories people were bent on tupperwaring it with.

 

"Transition" imo was actually very good way of putting it.   They weren't tearing it down - but they were undoubtedly moving forward  to a different and new (younger) stage - just not hastily.  They were intending to 'remain competitve' - and they were intending a measured 'rething' - however, it was never going to be a drastic tear down - and being 'competitive' and trying to make the playoffs is also not necessarily reducible to the concept of 'retooling' or thinking you're going to return to contention via a retool move or two.  I think there's an important difference between trying to rehabilitate asset value, gaining back some competitiveness, but not necessarily believing that that constituted a return to contending.

 

I think it was actually fairly clear that they were going to "transition" - and what that meant - ie peeling off a few veterans at a time - attempting to gain younger players and prospects/picks in the process, while metering it over a 'transition' period, where looking back, four years later there are a few players remaining, and an incomparably deep pool of futures - they simply did it one room at a time as opposed to bringing in a backhoe.  People can debate whether or not that was ideal or effective, but it helps if the reference point is correct in the first instance - and I don't think it's that difficult to understand why they 'balanced' it in those ways when you look at both the context of the team's assets and the perceived imperatives of ownership.  In that sense, I think Linden and Benning actually rode a quite respectable line.

 

It's not a cookie-cutter concept teardown - and it wasn't really a cookie-cutter context into which Benning was stepping.

It was also not really the belief they were about to rebound into contention.  To read that into it imo a misread that ignores the larger picture.

I have no problem with the 'plan' - the circumstances were far from ideal, they did not call for a bipolar set of options as a 'solution' imo. and the results in the end are what matter - which I won't be criticizing - unless I can dig deeper than simply the Linden and Benning era.

 

 

[aGENT]

21 minutes ago, canucksnihilist said:

 

Draft picks were traded away the first few years for players who were older and could help the team compete for a playoff spot.  so the "whatever-it-is" started once that had failed.  Of course there were some gains there as far as young players, not everything was traded away for older players that could 'win now".  but a sizeable number of picks were traded just for that purpose.

 

I know you retroactively see a plan, and that is great - but justifying actions post-hoc and seeing the plan before things happen and see if it works or not - that is a whole other story.

1.  I don't see any posts from you or anybody in 2015 or 2016 about how the plan was to try to make the playoffs for a few years and then start to rebuild by trading away players at the deadline.  The plan was to keep making the playoffs.  And it failed.  I think it is so obvious.  I would be shocked if most people here don't agree with that point at least.

2. Can you tell me the plan for the next few years so that when it changes at least we can agree it was a failed plan, and if it succeeds then we can agree it succeeded?

 

Trading away the Sedins and Edler is exactly what was needed a few years ago to really jump start a rebuild.  but as the team wasn't rebuilding, they didn't do it.  If you think otherwise, we can just disagree on that, but stranger things have happened.  If Gretzky can get traded, so can anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IIRC, somebody did the math and we were actually up a pick or two in that period. So no. And again, periphery. Rebuilds are on the backs of (largely early) 1sts. 

 

Nope, I've seen and heard the same plan since day one, not 'retroactively'. Attempt to remain competitive with a firm eye on the future has been this groups mantra from the start. Really wasn't hard at all to miss.

 

The plan was to attempt to 'remain competitive' with their eyes firmly on the future.

 

The plan the next few years as far as I can tell is the same as it's been the past 4. Do what you can (within reason) to make the NHL team competitive while continuing to build youth for the future. Maybe read it over a couple times to see if it sinks in.

 

'Needed' OK well let's just ignore their ages, NMC's, NTC contracts etc and all live in a fairly land that isn't reality....weeee!

[canucksnihilist]

52 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Even given what you have said, JB has accomplished building an amazing group of very talented young players, right?  

Yes that is not being debated!   I think he has done a great job.   Despite the first plan failing he recovered and has made huge strides in first round drafting and altering the plan to more of a rebuild