Phat Fingers Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 10 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: NHL Prospects are like collecting girls phone numbers at the Bar....... They don't all work out........ They are just not that into you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 9 hours ago, Alflives said: Go and read the utter filth on that other Canuck’s board () and you will still find a lot of nasty JB haters. Try to avoid the dark web Alf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 12 hours ago, IBatch said: This exactly although maybe extend it 25 and under. This is what the THN Future Watch is all about, and why they predicted WNP wins it all in 2015 , this year (at that time maybe you'd think they were crazy). Yes we have one of the best pools in the league and probably the best one we've ever had by a long shot. The trick is to keep at it for a couple more years even after the some of the cream is in the lineup. That will push us into another level completely once the playoffs are a given year after year. Take away Pettersson, OJ and Hughes and we'd be middling again... Take away Gretzky, Messier and Coffey and the oilers don’t win their cups. Chicago without Toews, Kane and Kieth are a bottom feeder. TO without Mathews, Marner and Nylander... Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 57 minutes ago, Phat Fingers said: Take away Gretzky, Messier and Coffey and the oilers don’t win their cups. Chicago without Toews, Kane and Kieth are a bottom feeder. TO without Mathews, Marner and Nylander... Etc. That might be premature. I hope so though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 3 hours ago, Phat Fingers said: Take away Gretzky, Messier and Coffey and the oilers don’t win their cups. - Different Era(No Cap) Chicago without Toews, Kane and Kieth are a bottom feeder. -Missed playoffs last year TO without Mathews, Marner and Nylander... Etc. -Have not won a cup or went deep into the playoffs Vegas needed no "Elite" player(s) to make it the finals. "Big Gamers" those players that will "show up" in the playoffs are what we need. There are plenty of teams with good key players but its what comprises your 23 man roster is what really matters. You failed to include other players that made those teams great and failed to say why the Leafs have not made it farther in the playoffs. Players such as Malholtra and Dorsett may be the glue that holds everything together and we don't need to "tank" to acquire such players either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 20 hours ago, Provost said: 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.... I'd like to see this bass-ackwards alternate universe where trading Tanev or Edler makes us remotely 'better short term'. 14 hours ago, Provost said: I also want to see him make and win a big trade where he actually moved out a significant roster player to make us better. That hasn’t happened yet as it has been tinkering on the edges. Kesler is his only significant trade and that was publicly forced and not his choice. 16 hours ago, IBatch said: Take away Pettersson, OJ and Hughes and we'd be middling again... This: 13 hours ago, N7Nucks said: To be fair take away any team's top 3 prospects and their prospect pool will be middling at best. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlemonger Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 We need to draft one more top center/LW and one more 3rd-5th defenceman in next years draft. Then, if the prospects pan out in a couple years, then we can say the rebuild is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted August 31, 2018 Author Share Posted August 31, 2018 10 minutes ago, aGENT said: I'd like to see this bass-ackwards alternate universe where trading Tanev or Edler makes us remotely 'better short term'. If they are part of a package for a better player... not sure how that is a hard concept to grasp? If Tanev was one piece (along with futures) for Karlsson... we are immediately better. Dramatically better. I would also like to see this bass-akward universe where Nick Bonino and Burrows 5 years past his prime would be considered “significant” roster players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarM Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 7 minutes ago, Battlemonger said: We need to draft one more top center/LW and one more 3rd-5th defenceman in next years draft. Then, if the prospects pan out in a couple years, then we can say the rebuild is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 10 minutes ago, Provost said: If they are part of a package for a better player... not sure how that is a hard concept to grasp? If Tanev was one piece (along with futures) for Karlsson... we are immediately better. Dramatically better. I would also like to see this bass-akward universe where Nick Bonino and Burrows 5 years past his prime would be considered “significant” roster players. The first is HIGHLY unlikely to happen. Far more likely those guys are moved for some combination of picks and/or prospects. AKA = not better short term (which I'd be fine with FWIW). There's still people here who hate the Bonino trade (particularly after he went on to win a cup as clearly the key cog in the Pens win ). He was also our 2C at the time. Are you saying a 2C isn't a 'significant' player? Burrows is a Canuck legend, past his prime or not. And getting Dahlen for him was outright thievery particularly given he was past his prime. You'd think you'd commend Benning on that rather than condemning him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted August 31, 2018 Author Share Posted August 31, 2018 21 minutes ago, aGENT said: The first is HIGHLY unlikely to happen. Far more likely those guys are moved for some combination of picks and/or prospects. AKA = not better short term (which I'd be fine with FWIW). There's still people here who hate the Bonino trade (particularly after he went on to win a cup as clearly the key cog in the Pens win ). He was also our 2C at the time. Are you saying a 2C isn't a 'significant' player? Burrows is a Canuck legend, past his prime or not. And getting Dahlen for him was outright thievery particularly given he was past his prime. You'd think you'd commend Benning on that rather than condemning him... You are deeply stretching. - A Karlsson deal is unlikely to happen, but many sources are saying we are a serious competitor in it. Those sources also say out of the four pieces Ottawa is asking for, one is a solidnroster player. So whether a deal ultimately gets consummated, our brass seems to now be in the “get better” mode and not trading away good roster players for strictly futures like you suggest. If the latter is the case then those veterans would already be gone - I can only assume you were joking about Bonino being the key cog in his Cup run. He was also not our 2C when he was traded.. filling in on spot duty doesn’t count. - Burrows is a legend and was an amazing Canuck. He was a 4th line player for us by the time he moved. If you want to consider that a significant roster player, then add in moves like us moving Garrison out. - I wasn’t condemning Benning at all, I gave him plenty of credit for drafting better than even the most optimistic folks could expect. If we re-did the drafts now, almost all his picks would go higher than he stole them for. I also give him credit for successsfuly tinkering at the edges of the roster. Baertschi, Granlund, Sutter, Dahlen, Goldobin, and probably someone else I am forgetting about are all better than what we sent the other way. - I just said that before we go annointing him as the best GM in the history of the NHL, we have to see him do things beyond his core skill set of amateur scouting. That means managing the cap, making significant roster trades to make us better, signing UFAs that fill holes, etc. All things that need to happen if we are to make the playoffs and start winning a few rounds. I am not yet sure that he is capable of all of that or even if he will get a chance to show he is. If our team is terrible next year and doesn’t make the playoffs the year after that... he will get fired. Another GM will step in and get the credit for moving us the next few steps based on the foundation of a great set of prospects. I can easily see Benning becoming a GM that bounces around getting hired by rebuilding teams and then getting 4-5 years before becoming the fall guy for unrealistic expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Battlemonger said: We need to draft one more top center/LW and one more 3rd-5th defenceman in next years draft. Then, if the prospects pan out in a couple years, then we can say the rebuild is done. Some of Benning's trades and/or signings have not been great. But one person cannot continually be successful in every single transaction they make. The great thing about Benning is how he has been able to make the Canuck's prospect pool one of the best in the NHL. And he has done that with an average or below average number of draft picks each year. His drafting has been top notch. If the team is able to begin competing soon (I do believe that will be next year) and Benning continues to be able to draft quality, then that is how a team remains competitive for years. If our drafting would have been even half this good in previous years, we could have kept inserting a very good prospect now and again on ELCs to keep the cap down while our great players continued to win. I am not trying to get into a debate about specific GMs in any way. I am concentrating on drafting with this post. I guess what I am saying is, I think the rebuild goes for one more year but hope the great drafting continues long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appleboy Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 If players like Tanev , Sutter , Edler or other vets are moved why would anyone want anything but draft picks. Right now our future is bright because of the way the club has drafted. Give Benning as many draft picks as possible. Let things develop slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 22 hours ago, Provost said: That isn’t the commonly used definition of “rebuild”. 20 hours ago, Provost said: 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. I suppose I should have anticipated that Provost would resort to this pattern, when he's unable to conceive of a different perspective. A childish protest on your part, of the reality that concepts are essentially contested - the people have different perspectives on things like 'rebuilds', 'retools', 'transitions', etc - that different people perceive those processes to take different forms, be in different stages, etc. It must be frustrating to fail to realize that language is subject to things like ambiguity, interpretation, nuance of meaning - and even more frustrating when discussing something more complex than the meaning of a particular word - a concept - like "rebuild". It should be patently obvious to virtually everyone on these boards that there is no consensus perspective on this team's 'rething' - that process is perceived in all kinds of ways - so far from a consensus in fact that people don't use the same terms to describe the process this team has engaged in. Some go so far as to believe the 'rebuild' has yet to begin - others don't consider it a 'real rebuild' while others look at the process differently - as a 'transition' (implying a more protracted process than a 'tear down', which some people equate with 'rebuild'. Some people believed the object was to "compete now" as a result of signing particular FA's - and that the team 'avoided' a 'rebuild' - while others believed it was a 'stealth tank'. People won't conform to Provost's preferred 'paradigm of constraints' lol. Good luck with that - a control freak impulse where concepts and language are concerned that don't conform to your preferred 'constraints'. Surely Benning did not cookie cutter his approach to fit your concept of a 'rebuild' - that alone should be enough to clue you in to the fact others will see/interpret that process differently than you do. And surprise - as usual Provost takes a hockey discussion into fluffed up pedantry - while devolving your inability to understand alternative perspectives as if 'spewing nonsense'. Next you'll be whining that you've been subject to ad-hominem attacks lol - as if you didn't just initiate that yourself. So here we are - chasing tails. I don't see anything of real substance in your post to engage with - which is usually where you take things - from hockey talk to completely diminished returns / frustrated attempts to impose your will. Is the 'rebuild' over? People don't even agree on what "the rebuild" was/is - so your vain attempts to impose your particular "paradigm of constraints" is hopelss, if not sheer arrogance. Even within your own reductive conception of "the rebuild" it is arguably not over - with no clear answer - and thereby people discuss these things. Your frustration over that fact isn't really something I admire. When you ask a question like "is the rebuild done" - amateur tip - don't expect there to be consensus perspectives on the concept, let alone a consensus answer. No - the 'rething' is not 'done'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 33 minutes ago, Provost said: You are deeply stretching. - A Karlsson deal is unlikely to happen, but many sources are saying we are a serious competitor in it. Those sources also say out of the four pieces Ottawa is asking for, one is a solidnroster player. So whether a deal ultimately gets consummated, our brass seems to now be in the “get better” mode and not trading away good roster players for strictly futures like you suggest. If the latter is the case then those veterans would already be gone - I can only assume you were joking about Bonino being the key cog in his Cup run. He was also not our 2C when he was traded.. filling in on spot duty doesn’t count. - Burrows is a legend and was an amazing Canuck. He was a 4th line player for us by the time he moved. If you want to consider that a significant roster player, then add in moves like us moving Garrison out. - I wasn’t condemning Benning at all, I gave him plenty of credit for drafting better than even the most optimistic folks could expect. If we re-did the drafts now, almost all his picks would go higher than he stole them for. I also give him credit for successsfuly tinkering at the edges of the roster. Baertschi, Granlund, Sutter, Dahlen, Goldobin, and probably someone else I am forgetting about are all better than what we sent the other way. - I just said that before we go annointing him as the best GM in the history of the NHL, we have to see him do things beyond his core skill set of amateur scouting. That means managing the cap, making significant roster trades to make us better, signing UFAs that fill holes, etc. All things that need to happen if we are to make the playoffs and start winning a few rounds. I am not yet sure that he is capable of all of that or even if he will get a chance to show he is. If our team is terrible next year and doesn’t make the playoffs the year after that... he will get fired. Another GM will step in and get the credit for moving us the next few steps based on the foundation of a great set of prospects. I can easily see Benning becoming a GM that bounces around getting hired by rebuilding teams and then getting 4-5 years before becoming the fall guy for unrealistic expectations. I do enjoy a good yoga session. Karlsson's not likely coming here (speaking of stretches). I think my tone was quite clear on Bonino and yes, he was our 2C. 'Significant' is subjective. You're the one that started this semantics nonsense. He was a clear leader on the team still even if a '4th line' player when he was moved. I'd say we already have a decent body of work to judge on UFA's and contracts. -Horvat's deal is a steal. (Same - to a lesser/smaller degree - with Baer, Granlund, Virtanen etc) -All the vets expire nicely over the next 4 years with progressively more open limited NTCs just as we start to need cap space for expiring ELC's. -The guys he's signed nicely fill holes and gaps in the roster until kids arrive. -He's set up or cap/contract situation to tick along like a fine Swiss clock the next 4 years. Though I'm sure he wouldn't mind a redo on the LE deal (can't win them all). As for further 'significant roster trades'...there's not really much left to move or much more he could have moved. The twins were immovable (if we even wanted to move them), Edler appears to have little desire to waive and Tanev's been injured most of the time he's been trade-able and/or was available when everyone and their dog was looking to move D before the ED so they didn't lose them for free. No point moving him in a flooded market/low return. So who exactly are these 'significant roster players' he should have moved already? Otherwise, Tanev, Sutter are still available to move next year and the year after respectively during their expiring years (when they're far more likely to be dealt). Patience grasshopper. I'd refrain from crystal balling on his job security myself ...but have at'er if it floats your boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5nothincanucksohno Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 4 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said: Some of Benning's trades and/or signings have not been great. But one person cannot continually be successful in every single transaction they make. The great thing about Benning is how he has been able to make the Canuck's prospect pool one of the best in the NHL. And he has done that with an average or below average number of draft picks each year. His drafting has been top notch. If the team is able to begin competing soon (I do believe that will be next year) and Benning continues to be able to draft quality, then that is how a team remains competitive for years. If our drafting would have been even half this good in previous years, we could have kept inserting a very good prospect now and again on ELCs to keep the cap down while our great players continued to win. I am not trying to get into a debate about specific GMs in any way. I am concentrating on drafting with this post. I guess what I am saying is, I think the rebuild goes for one more year but hope the great drafting continues long term. I would also say that Benning has been fairly solid in terms of limiting the value he has traded to other teams (i.e. his trades aren't ground breaking but he also hasn't made a huge mistake like a reverse of the Burrows trade where he has given up a high end prospect for a vet)...people rag on the Guddy trade but I am not as concerned about that one. The Forsling trade was probably his worst trade. The other big mistake is the Eriksson signing...more so the term but shouldn't cause any problems long-term and it didn't cost any assets. All in all Benning has been methodical in his approach and I hope the trend continues...in one or two more drafts the team should have a lot of extra talent to utilize in trades for any missing pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Does "significant" mean skill set, team impact, or what? "A trade that makes us better", does that mean point totals, depth, or what? Is it pronounced se-man-tics or suh-man-tics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 22 hours 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. 19 hours ago, Hutton Wink said: It's easy to get caught up in this "just one more"; it's like a drug addiction. A team is never made up of 23 A-level elite top-of-the-draft players. Not all prospects reach their expectations, others come out of nowhere to exceed them. What happens if/when Gaudette and Lind both establish themselves as middle or top-6 players? Then we still have Boeser, Dahlen, Virtanen in that mix, or others like Madden or Lockwood might surprise and reach that level? What if our next high-end pick is an MDC? Oh well, let's just "tank" (waste) another season in the cellar to try again? Next thing you know, our formerly young prospects are in their prime and we have to start thinking about their replacements, and as a result you never get out of that cycle of always trying to find the next and better high. At some point we have to let go of the shiny-toy addiction and start moving forward, and that will be determined by the players themselves. I think the problem with many arguments regarding the 'rething' was an expectation that the team execute some kind of cookie cutter conception - and as you point out in your first post, people refuse or are unable to look at the process realistically - perhaps in part because they're committed to a format that wasn't necessarily realistic when the state of the franchise upon Benning taking the GM role is looked at in context. It's a relatively beaten dead horse - but the team was coming off a disastrous Tortorella misadventure and had devalued it's aging core assets to a very counterproductive point in terms of returning assets for those veteran 'rething' pieces that were supposed to be converted into the future of the franchise. Additionally, there were numerous limiting clauses that a GM has to work with the implications of - in other words - neither of those two factors alone simply enabled a 'tear down' / tankjob etc that so many people were clamouring for. In a vacuum, their imperative to conform to that approach may be arguable - in the real world it was arguably a fantasy that was not a viable option - and additionally, whether it would have been advisable even if possible is also debatable. I agree with you again where you see the transition as having reached another stage - where the departure of the Sedins coincides with a relative critical mass of young assets. Where the forward group is concerned, the bulk of the transition work may be considered to be in place - however it remains to be tested how effectively the plethora of talent they have translates at the NHL level (a few are extremely strong bets, many are wait-and-see, and where the levels and consistency they achieve is concerned, wait and see applies to almost all of them. The blueline - again - many of the future pieces may now be in place - however that to remains to be seen. It's a results business - not a 'potential' business - so any perspective that believes they are 'done' is a matter of 'faith' at this point. Your second post - to me - looks like you're clearly addressing the perspective of those who believe the team should continue to "tank" - and seek another high pick in the coming draft. Clearly from yours - and my - perspective, "tanking" was never really the 'process' the team sought. Some folks seek to confirm their dissonance by representing Benning's tenure as an 'accidental tank' - that perspective may hold some water if the principal causes of them bottoming out were not so mitigated by extreme roster losses through the 2nd and 3rd yrs of his tenure. Was that misfortune a blessing? Perhaps in some senses - but the idea that he was a fool believing they would contend in those years but failed to live up to a "win now" 'competitiveness' imo is a misread/misrepresentation. Stories. That don't necessarily reflect the process imo. So I agree with you on both counts. One - they're approaching a new stage - but it's still a protracted transition / ongoing 'retool' - and in large part as dictated by relative necessity. I also agree that the idea they 'should tank' this year is also a misread of their intentions. However, I don't think they are ready, nor should they, attempt to 'change' their course in any fundamental or dramatic way. They need to continue to add 'shiny objects' - but in the form they have since day one of Benning's tenure = no real departure from their transition. A player like Karlson being available is simply another incident in a relatively consistent transition timeline - that a simple either/or perspective will not really be able to process. The Canucks interest in Karlson would not necessarily be a departure from a 'rebuild' - they've never really approached their transition as a cookie cutter 'rebuild'. Not acquiring a Karlson is also no real indication of an intent to 'continue tanking'. The perpetual attempt to fit the 'reasoning' of the franchise into these simplistic "rebuild" categories is a large part of the failure to understand what they've actually been doing. Acquiring Karlson imo would far more come down to the form and price necessary, of the fit, etc - than it does to a perceived 'stage' of a 'rebuild'. Getting stuck in rebuild stage thinking doesn't really serve an understanding of why they'd consider this move - it's far more complicated than that imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silky mitts Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 2 hours ago, EdgarM said: Vegas needed no "Elite" player(s) to make it the finals. "Big Gamers" those players that will "show up" in the playoffs are what we need. There are plenty of teams with good key players but its what comprises your 23 man roster is what really matters. You failed to include other players that made those teams great and failed to say why the Leafs have not made it farther in the playoffs. Players such as Malholtra and Dorsett may be the glue that holds everything together and we don't need to "tank" to acquire such players either. I hate this Vegas argument.. for starters their season is most likely the exception not the norm. Plus you can say fleury definitely played elite , and so did karlsson. And they got spanked by the caps and their elite players. No answer for ovechkin, kuznetsoz, backstrom etc. I’m sorry but elite players definitely correlate to success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 22 minutes ago, Jester13 said: Does "significant" mean skill set, team impact, or what? "A trade that makes us better", does that mean point totals, depth, or what? Is it pronounced se-man-tics or suh-man-tics? Mere shawping lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.