Pronman Rates Prospects #2 - Rebuild Done?

[Angry Goose]

the nucks are at a point where they have a decent amount of young players and prospects, but development has to be the big ?.   It's great that horvat and boeser look like players that you can win with, but the rest all have some proving to do.  otherwise you just look like another EDM.  this season is definitely must see tv for guys like virtanen, Baertschi, Granlund, Gaunce, Goldy, Hutton and Pouliot.  I'd love to see this team take a step forward (and flukely win the lottery lol) because the majority of these guys raise their game to the next level.  

[Where'd Luongo?]

3 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

In 2012? He was a top prospect but you can't say things didn't go downhill for him quickly after his first season. 

Haha I don't think I did say that. In 2012, the Oilers were considered to have a good prospect pool.

[HerrDrFunk]

Just now, Where'd Luongo? said:

Haha I don't think I did say that. In 2012, the Oilers were considered to have a good prospect pool.

Yeah, I'm not saying that Edmonton didn't have a good prospect pool in 2012. I'm asking if Yakupov could now (in 2018) be considered the biggest 1st overall bust. 

[Where'd Luongo?]

1 minute ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Yeah, I'm not saying that Edmonton didn't have a good prospect pool in 2012. I'm asking if Yakupov could now (in 2018) be considered the biggest 1st overall bust. 

Oh, I guess. The guy could turn it around but it's unlikely.

[City-in-state-of-emergency]

I think with Benning as our GM we are a dangerous threat. He is good at figuring out a players milage and trading it if it dips low. 

[oldnews]

8 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Even again today, on comes Pratt with "owners and management refuse to do a full rebuild", yet the term is never defined, whether by muppet media or the parroting ever-critics in the fanbase.  Doesn't matter that only Edler and Tanev are left, the idea that they sign UFAs and might look to acquire players like Karlsson means "it's not a rebuild".  Meanwhile Toronto signs multiple 37-year-olds and trades away 1st and 2nd round picks after only 2-3 years of rebuilding, and that's called a "model rebuild to envy."

 

The most rational definition (imo) is that a rebuild is a deeper retool or transition.  What teams SHOULD be doing is "semper retoolum", always retooling.  The Hawks have been trying to do it, by continually cycling in a few younger players every year to replace older ones and address team needs.  But when a team gets to the point where the Canucks were in 2014, that process hadn't been done over the years so a deeper more extensive rejigging had to take place. 

 

The transition is done roster-wise as well as culturally with the Sedins' departure.  Now comes the full transition on-ice, and development of the new core.  That doesn't mean we suddenly stop drafting and developing; that should never end.  But next up after this year as we adjust to and establish who will identify as the new core and culture will be to start moving assets from strong positions to fill ones of weakness.

I get more than enough samples of the Pratt-le jockeys of the media in what people repost here - and can't give 5 minutes to it otherwise.

 

If the team peeled off players like Tanev, Baertschi, one or two of their forward prospects (where they may have some critical mass), perhaps one of their young goaltenders/prospects, secondary pieces/picks - I could see that as continuous with a reasonable 'rething'.   Unlikely, but you never know the parameters Ottawa will have to deal within.

 

But I agree - what the team should be doing is continuing the process they are engaged in  and extending their build into the future - not perceiving to have 'completed' or 'finished' anything.  If they start dealing bluechip prospects and 1st round picks, then I think they'd be crossing a line into ' counter-rething moves.'

 

This year and next are those years where they add another 'generation' of futures to build upon those they've acquired.

 

The reality is that the principle currency in the NHL is youth - you keep adding it and you have the assets to make the moves you need to at the right/opportune time.

I'd be highly hesitant to start peeling off that course.  The only reasoning that would make sense imo would be the logic/imperatives of ownership - which of course is a significant factor.

 

[Provost]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

Again, you're conflating two things.

 

I can see why you'd interpret that "fluffy" comment that way - however it is not a comment that the ranking itself is inflated -  what is meant by that comment is the fact Pronman is now fluffing this prospect pool means very little to me, as if a qualifier of what almost everyone already perceives.  Like I've already posted, he's changed his chirp considerably based on hindsighting - after Pettersson punked him, Gaudette won a Hobey Baker (who he had ranked at 9 one year ago), Demko continues to bust out (who he likewise sandbagged).  That Pronman is now fluffing this team's prospect pool = who cares.

 

The depth and quality of the prospect pool imo is outstanding - however, that does not equate to a 'rebuild being done'.

The 'rething' is done when this team is contending.  Until then, any declarations of a rething being done is premature and pretentious = a fool's game.

 

It's akin to the silly statements made many times on these boards in the past number of years that the Leafs "rebuild was done" - simply because they'd eeked into the playoffs (and exited in the 1st round) and had a few high end young top 6 forwards.   That, however, does not 'complete' a rething - not even close.  They still had a hopelessly wanting blueline, average goaltending and lots of work to do.  They've now added Tavares and I'd argue that their 'rebuild' nevertheless remains unfinished.

 

The Canucks - are absolutely nowhere near "finished".   They may now have the key pieces in their system that will need to eventually prove to be enough to contend - however, we don't really know that - and projecting the end of a 'rething" at this stage is a fool's game = extremely premature.

 

Top ranked prospect pool = great.  Finished rebuilding = a silly assumption that does not necessarily follow.  Lots of 'top prospect pools' do not amount to 'competed rebuilds' - there is no shortage of 'top prospect' pools that wind up nevertheless being failed rebuilds.

 

 

That isn’t the commonly used definition of “rebuild”.

 

The term isn’t generally used to mean “any team not directly contending for the Stanley Cup”.  Using it that way waters it down to being effectively meaningless. 25+ teams in the league do not refer to themselves in a “rebuild” phase, nor does anyone in hockey.

 

An approximated commonly used definition of being in a “rebuild” would be more like:

“The phase of a team where it is divesting itself of current players in exchange for future oriented prospects and draft picks... without regard to how that will affect their current or short term ability to win or compete.”

 

The opposite of that being in a “win-now” mode where a team is divesting itself of future oriented prospects and picks in exchange for players that will immediately positively impact their ability to compete and win.

 

Modt teams in the league not being in either extreme category and in some combination of incrementally tying to improve their team through drafting and trades.

 

Using that definition of rebuild... I think we are probably out of it now, or at worst a piece or two out of it.

 

Even moving out veterans like Tanev/Edler/Del Zotto etc now would probably be seen through a lens of getting us better in the short term as well as in the future.... so not fitting into a “rebuild” philosophy, but more an incremental improvement one.

 

 

[JeremyCuddles]

Rebuild is done when those prospects prove to be good NHLers. Yeah it’s nice we are rated so high. But gotta go out and prove you are worthy of that praise.

[Blömqvist]

I think we're in for a top-10 pick this year, then the following year we are in the playoff hunt and end up with a top-15 or top-20 pick. At that point -- three years from now -- hopefully we'll have a legitimate playoff team and we have accumulated enough assets that we can pull off a high-profile trade using the 2020 1st rounder or 2021 1st round pick and other prospects to bring in an elite player. Kinda like an Erik Karlsson level elite player but three years from now, as clearly we're not at that stage where we have expendable assets just yet.

[Where'd Luongo?]

5 minutes ago, Provost said:

That isn’t the commonly used definition of “rebuild”.

 

The term isn’t generally used to mean “any team not directly contending for the Stanley Cup”.  Using it that way waters it down to being effectively meaningless. 25+ teams in the league do not refer to themselves in a “rebuild” phase, nor does anyone in hockey.

 

An approximated commonly used definition of being in a “rebuild” would be more like:

“The phase of a team where it is divesting itself of current players in exchange for future oriented prospects and draft picks... without regard to how that will affect their current or short term ability to win or compete.”

 

The opposite of that being in a “win-now” mode where a team is divesting itself of future oriented prospects and picks in exchange for players that will immediately positively impact their ability to compete and win.

 

Modt teams in the league not being in either extreme category and in some combination of incrementally tying to improve their team through drafting and trades.

 

Using that definition of rebuild... I think we are probably out of it now, or at worst a piece or two out of it.

 

 

Edler, Tanev, Sutter, Eriksson. Once they are gone, the rebuild is complete (maybe Tanev stays).

[Phat Fingers]

2 hours ago, 24K PureCool said:

Jack Hughes. That is all. 

 

 

 

 

So basically one more year in the basement. We won't get good until Quinn gets in and Petterson adjust and come into his own in the nhl.

Replacing the twins with the bros is a fitting end to our rebuild woes. Adding Jack to our team would give us one of the deepest young center corps in the league. 

 

Hughes, Pettersson Horvat, Gaudette Sutter 

 

Pettersson or Horvat could slot into a wing. Horvat as a top 3 left wing with Pettersson or Hughes as his center with Boeser on the other side. 

 

Having a top six of Hughes Boeser Pettersson Horvat Baer and one of Virtannen, Gads, , Goldy, Lind or who ever else is able to play with the skilled guys. 

 

Our forwards would be set with Hughes. Convert JV to a left wing and there is a top six.  

[BlastPast]

4 minutes ago, Provost said:

An approximated commonly used definition of being in a “rebuild” would be more like:

“The phase of a team where it is divesting itself of current players in exchange for future oriented prospects and draft picks... without regard to how that will affect their current or short term ability to win or compete.”

 

The opposite of that being in a “win-now” mode where a team is divesting itself of future oriented prospects and picks in exchange for players that will immediately positively impact their ability to compete and win.

First off iechyd da !

 

This is the issue I have with the use of the terms like  rebuild or "win now".  People apply their own narrow definition to it without thinking of any other circumstances or conditions that could cause a team to adjust their approach in a way that is not in keeping with that definition.  I can see how a GM or even ownership would be reluctant to tear a team down to the point where it is an injury or two away from being in a position to set futility records.  Having been through the Vancouver Grizzlies once I don't think anyone is keen to go through something like that again.  In order to avoid that the team retains or even obtains established players to give them some depth and some degree of performance certainty.    This flies in the face of what some expect a team with no realistic shot at the cup to be doing and confuses them.

[Dazzle]

7 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

Rebuild is done when those prospects prove to be good NHLers. Yeah it’s nice we are rated so high. But gotta go out and prove you are worthy of that praise.

What do you mean by "good NHLers"? That is an incredible subjective and vague category.

 

If you're in the NHL, you're "good".

 

If you're producing in the NHL, even if they are modest numbers as a rookie, you are doing good.

 

If you're a player like Gaudreau, who's flashy and is a dangerous threat in the offensive zone, you're good.

 

If you're a player like Hedman who isn't flashy but does all the right things in the backend, you're good.

 

If you're Crosby or Ovechkin, you're really good.

[Warhippy]

I actually stated this a number of times over the past few seasons.

 

My timeline now looks like

 

2018/2019 top 10 pick

2019/2020 top 15 pick

2020/2021 playoff contending/bubble team

 

I've been a pretty vocal person about us not being in any sort of position for contention until at least 2020.  needing 1 more high pick and knowing we'd be a bubble team the following year simply based on our defence and questions about who will be goaltending for us at that point.

 

I'd say it's generous for sure to list us at #2 .  Top 5 maybe top 10 for sure but it's the DEPTH of prospects we're missing as we're sitting and banking on 2 drafts right now to propel us forward for depth and 3 big names outside of the depth to be our future core.  And as we've seen during the Horvat and Virtanen drafts...sure things are rarely ever sure

[spook007]

29 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

the nucks are at a point where they have a decent amount of young players and prospects, but development has to be the big ?.   It's great that horvat and boeser look like players that you can win with, but the rest all have some proving to do.  otherwise you just look like another EDM.  this season is definitely must see tv for guys like virtanen, Baertschi, Granlund, Gaunce, Goldy, Hutton and Pouliot.  I'd love to see this team take a step forward (and flukely win the lottery lol) because the majority of these guys raise their game to the next level.  

Absolutely correct.... now the hardest part start. The transitioning to the NHL. If half of the players we've got can live up to their potential we should be golden.

[oldnews]

8 minutes ago, Provost said:

That isn’t the commonly used definition of “rebuild”.

 

The term isn’t generally used to mean “any team not directly contending for the Stanley Cup”.

 

Two things - I think you're still trapping yourself in oversimplified either/or thinking -- ie 'rebuild' vs "win now".   I am absolutely not convinced that these things are separated by the kind of margin you are implying - as if this team is now shifting into post-rething 'win now' mode.  It isn't that simple imo - not even close - and I think that kind of simplistic logic could lead to the wrong mindset regarding what are far more nuanced 'stages'.

 

This team still has assets it could 'divest' - and that may or may not make sense moving forward - something entirely dependent upon who would be dealt for what.  'Rebuild' definitions are literally/comparably trivial imo.

 

I'd much rather see this team continue to 'rething' than perceive it to be "done" -  to continue to build it's base into the future, as opposed to making an illogical assumption that they'd be wasting ELCs if they do not go out and seek the kind of high-end supporting cast to 'speed up' the rething to suit the perceptiong that there is one generation of an emerging prospects that they need to act to avoid 'wasting'.

 

Regardless the question was not what the definition of a rebuild is, but whether this team is "done" theirs.  I don't think so - certainly not based on prospect pool 'projections' no matter how 'authoritative' - which I certainly don't consider Pronman to be.

 

The team will be testing it's rething in the coming years - and we'll "know when we know" whether it's been 'finished' or not.  I've heard lots of expressions of 'finished' rebuilds that wound up failing and extending long beyond anticipated.   The team needs to stay the course and not get bound up in outsmarting themselves chasing arbitrary definitions of timelines or 'proper' definitions.

 

 

[The Lock]

I don't really think one simply says a rebuild is done. Let the team determine that by it's performance. Once it's clear the team looks to be good then it's easier to say the rebuild is done. Until then, it's all on paper and, if anything, it should be known how easily that can falter.

 

Saying a rebuild is over without any proof on the ice is like walking out halfway through a movie thinking it was over. Yet, you haven't watched the climax or saw if it's a happy ending or not.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Die-hard sports fans aren't noted for their patience. Back in 2014, had we realized the 4~5 yrs of mediocrity in store, the whining would have been biblical.

 

Somehow they traversed through this rough patch, & not too many of us have wailed out from the window ledges. Financially I bet they've broken even, approx(expenses, vs butts in seats)..which to me, is rather impressive for a stealth rebuild. If they made a whack of cash, this dirty league would funnel in to the sunshine-welfare region anyways, so this was definitely the time to go modest & restock cupboards.

 

Even though they were restocking, ownership still invested heavily in a new farm(Utica) & some pricey UFA's to bridge our kids to the here & now.

 

I've actually enjoyed watching the evolution & patience exhibited, as we muddled through this lame half-decade. Considering the expanding wealth of youth, it bears the hallmarks of a sustainable growth, once the kids start bringin' it!

[Provost]

50 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Two things - I think you're still trapping yourself in oversimplified either/or thinking -- ie 'rebuild' vs "win now".   I am absolutely not convinced that these things are separated by the kind of margin you are implying - as if this team is now shifting into post-rething 'win now' mode.  It isn't that simple imo - not even close - and I think that kind of simplistic logic could lead to the wrong mindset regarding what are far more nuanced 'stages'.

 

This team still has assets it could 'divest' - and that may or may not make sense moving forward - something entirely dependent upon who would be dealt for what.  'Rebuild' definitions are literally/comparably trivial imo.

 

I'd much rather see this team continue to 'rething' than perceive it to be "done" -  to continue to build it's base into the future, as opposed to making an illogical assumption that they'd be wasting ELCs if they do not go out and seek the kind of high-end supporting cast to 'speed up' the rething to suit the perceptiong that there is one generation of an emerging prospects that they need to act to avoid 'wasting'.

 

Regardless the question was not what the definition of a rebuild is, but whether this team is "done" theirs.  I don't think so - certainly not based on prospect pool 'projections' no matter how 'authoritative' - which I certainly don't consider Pronman to be.

 

The team will be testing it's rething in the coming years - and we'll "know when we know" whether it's been 'finished' or not.  I've heard lots of expressions of 'finished' rebuilds that wound up failing and extending long beyond anticipated.   The team needs to stay the course and not get bound up in outsmarting themselves chasing arbitrary definitions of timelines or 'proper' definitions.

 

 

I almost admire your ability to simply decide to not accept the paradigm of constraints like what words actually mean and silly things like definitions, like those things aren’t literally the basis of language and interpreting the world.... and also your ability to simply ignore things that don’t support your pre-existing viewpoints.

 

Mostly it just makes you spew nonsense though.

 

Nowhere did I suggest that we were moving into a win-now mode.  I clearly outlined that most teams are in a middle category of incremental improvement.

 

The part of the definition you are ignoring is the part about what you would be divesting players for and for what purpose.

 

A rebuilding team would be making moves WITHOUT REGARD to how that move impacted its current and short term ability to compete and win.

 

Teams not rebuilding still change players and move on from veterans, they just do so in an effort to get incrementally better... rather than not caring how it impacts the current ability to win.  

 

That means we could trade any of Tanev, Sutter, Edler, etc... but it would be with the aim of making THIS team better... not some imagined prospective  team several years from now.

 

 

[Rob_Zepp]

2 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Die-hard sports fans aren't noted for their patience. Back in 2014, had we realized the 4~5 yrs of mediocrity in store, the whining would have been biblical.

 

Somehow they traversed through this rough patch, & not too many of us have wailed out from the window ledges. Financially I bet they've broken even, approx(expenses, vs butts in seats)..which to me, is rather impressive for a stealth rebuild. If they made a whack of cash, this dirty league would funnel in to the sunshine-welfare region anyways, so this was definitely the time to go modest & restock cupboards.

 

Even though they were restocking, ownership still invested heavily in a new farm(Utica) & some pricey UFA's to bridge our kids to the here & now.

 

I've actually enjoyed watching the evolution & patience exhibited, as we muddled through this lame half-decade. Considering the expanding wealth of youth, it bears the hallmarks of a sustainable growth, once the kids start bringin' it!

GREAT POST!   What seems clear too now that dust has settled is that Linden's "we must be fair to Sedins and ice competitive team" was the force behind some of the veteran signings whereas Benning has been concentrating on the amateur draft and the trading of assets for other assets he felt had a higher ceiling (and most part he has been proven right on those most...for the most part).   

 

The relative "ranking" of a prospect pool is what it is - it means little to the on ice NHL product unless that prospective talent can be translated.   The way that Virtanen, Horvat, Boeser and even Stecher have started to emerge bodes well - clearly Green is a decent coach for these younger guys.   If anywhere near the same emergence can occur for EP, OJ, Gaudette, Demko, Hughes and one or two other of the bevy of prospects, this will be an entirely flipped team (old to young) in a pretty quick period of time.