[Discussion] When did the Canucks Truly Start Rebuilding?

[kanucks25]

54 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

If the team is trending up, let it go.  Be part of the positive moment instead of lamenting the past and what could have been because it matters little (no - zero) at this point.

Every bad move made is a sunk cost, so yes, in that sense dwelling on the past accomplishes nothing.

 

However, when evaluating the management team and whether or not they should be fired soon, you definitely have to look at the entire body of work.

 

There are positives to look forward to, but not enough (yet) to suggest Benning is completely safe.

 

In this context, it doesn't matter if we started rebuilding in 2014 or 2019. The fact is that Benning is soon to be 5 years on the job, and if in the 6th we don't see something significant, I don't think anyone should be surprised if a change is made especially with someone like Aquaman in charge of things.

[-DLC-]

53 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Every bad move made is a sunk cost, so yes, in that sense dwelling on the past accomplishes nothing.

 

However, when evaluating the management team and whether or not they should be fired soon, you definitely have to look at the entire body of work.

 

There are positives to look forward to, but not enough (yet) to suggest Benning is completely safe.

 

In this context, it doesn't matter if we started rebuilding in 2014 or 2019. The fact is that Benning is soon to be 5 years on the job, and if in the 6th we don't see something significant, I don't think anyone should be surprised if a change is made especially with someone like Aquaman in charge of things.

So what qualifies a bunch of "fans" to "evaluate management" and decide whether or not they should be fired?   It's not NHL19 and we're not really in a position to do so.  Do you know what's happening in the room?  Behind the scenes?  With relationships with other teams?

 

Looking at the body of work as static is a mistake though - it's a moving target.  And what is "see something significant"??   We have a whole new roster and some kids are moving into the line up AND having more success than they likely should be.  

 

We SCREAMED for this but now, no?  We want it all and we want it now?

 

So what are you looking for?  Results??   Well, that's a bit premature.

 

Picks?  - I'd say picking Petey was a huge success.  And that some of JB's picks are already showing they're ready for this league and are developing nicely.  Just not sure what this sense of panic and firing is all about??  We seem to go through this every year - it's been a steady stream of FIRE THIS GUY THAT GUY HIM TOO.  

 

My God, it gets old and takes me along with it.  

 

Are we there yet?  No.  But we don't have to sound like the Simpsons' kids in the back seat...enjoy the ride.  

[kanucks25]

42 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

So what qualifies a bunch of "fans" to "evaluate management" and decide whether or not they should be fired?   It's not NHL19 and we're not really qualified to do so.

 

Looking at the body of work as static is a mistake though - it's a moving target.  And what is "see something significant"??   We have a whole new roster and some kids are moving into the line up.  AND having more success than they likely should be.  

 

So what are you looking for?  Results??   Well, that's a bit premature.

 

Picks?  - I'd say picking Petey was a huge success.  And that some of JB's picks are already showing they're ready for this league and are developing nicely.  Just not sure what this sense of panic and firing is all about??  We seem to go through this every year - it's been a steady stream of FIRE THIS GUY THAT GUY HIM TOO.  

 

My God, it gets old and takes me along with it.  

 

Are we there yet?  No.  But we don't have to sound like the Simpsons' kids in the back seat.

None of us are qualified to make hockey decisions of course, but as fans we're all qualified to have an opinion.

 

(Side-note: some people here really seem to have trouble grasping the concept of a discussion board)

 

Right now, this is how most people evaluate our organization (at least those outside the bubble):

"Lots of exciting pieces, still lots of work to do before they're anything close to a contender"

 

If by after year 6, it doesn't change to something more like "this team is close to becoming a juggernaut" I think Benning is in trouble. Yes, that's just my opinion, but I think after 6 full years on the job the Stanley Cup needs to be something that's expected soon, not just hoped for sometime in the hazy future.

 

When Benning first took the job, he said he thought the team could be turned around pretty soon (I don't have the exact quote but you know which one I'm talking about). I'm sure that's something he told the owner, too, which was one of the reasons he got the job in the first place. If we're going into year 7 (2020-21) and we're still not considered a legit contender, I don't think that qualifies as "pretty soon" and at that point I doubt Aquaman will have much patience remaining.

 

e/ mistakes

[Dr. Crossbar]

Thinking more about this, it only makes sense that Aquilini would have favored a retool. He had just approved new contracts for the Sedins and Edler a year earlier among the other ntc/nmcs.

 

I think the roots of the decision to retool go back to those contracts and pre-date JB. They weren't approved with "rebuild" in mind. Those contracts were indicative of remaining competitive.

 

Then the Torts season backfired and really exposed the need for change in a big way. Imo, not only did that season expose the need for change in a jarring way, it also set up an increasing expectation of change. That was punctuated by Torts on his way out when he called the old core stale and we needed to get younger. Yet most of that stale core was locked up under immovable contracts and we lacked youth. 

 

To me this where the decision to retool and the need to rebuild collided. Even before JB was even hired. With the ntcs/nmcs, we were already locked into a "remaining compeitive" pipeline with an increasing demand and need for change. 

 

I think it's obvious the team should have been dismantled the first year JB took over. But we had too many immovable pieces that would keep us competitive and prevent a full tear down.

 

I don't think any directive from Aquilini to retool was sinister in nature. It looked more born out of trying to make good on the contractual investments to compete.

 

The more I think about it, the more I see the retool as largely being tied to the duration of the Sedins contract. It certainly matches up with Linden's comment about "not being fair to the Sedins" and also Linden's departure the same year the twins retired. 

 

I do think, though, that the departures of Hansen and Burrows tipped the balance of "retool" vs "rebuild" more toward the rebuild.

[Tomatoes11]

From the moves Benning has made...2019 and counting. Although he did dip his toes with the Burrows and Hansen trades but regressed right back after.

 

The Benning homers seem to think that the people who dislike him are just hating. There’s a reason why people hate his moves and we’re okay with Quinn, burke, Nonis, Gillis etc. I didn’t agree with all of their moves but I could understand them and the reasoning was sound, Benning though, man some of his moves are mind bogglingly bad and poor.

[RonMexico]

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

None of us are qualified to make hockey decisions of course, but as fans we're all qualified to have an opinion.

 

(Side-note: some people here really seem to have trouble grasping the concept of a discussion board)

 

Right now, this is how most people evaluate our organization (at least those outside the bubble):

"Lots of exciting pieces, still lots of work to do before they're anything close to a contender"

 

If by after year 6, it doesn't change to something more like "this team is close to becoming a juggernaut" I think Benning is in trouble. Yes, that's just my opinion, but I think after 6 full years on the job the Stanley Cup needs to be something that's expected soon, not just hoped for sometime in the hazy future.

 

When Benning first took a job, he said he thought the team could be turned around pretty soon (I don't have the exact quote but you know which one I'm talking about). I'm sure that's something he told the owner, too, which was one of the reasons he got the job in the first place. If we're going into year 7 (2020-21) and we're still not considered a legit contender, I don't think that qualifies are "pretty soon" and at that point I doubt Aquaman will have much patience remaining.

 

You do have to wonder how the time with Linden's input, and it allegedly conflicting with other Management, kept the retool/rework/rebuild from gaining traction the way Benning wanted it to go.

 

It's entirely possible that a few of the first six years are a wash with conflicting ideas of team direction. That's why I think Benning has a longer leash. He's not alone in the first time GM club anyways. 2/3 of the league have GMs who are 1st timers with questionable moves or even inactivity.

[kanucks25]

34 minutes ago, RonMexico said:

 

You do have to wonder how the time with Linden's input, and it allegedly conflicting with other Management, kept the retool/rework/rebuild from gaining traction the way Benning wanted it to go.

 

It's entirely possible that a few of the first six years are a wash with conflicting ideas of team direction. That's why I think Benning has a longer leash. He's not alone in the first time GM club anyways. 2/3 of the league have GMs who are 1st timers with questionable moves or even inactivity.

Yeah, that's just wishful thinking by anyone who is a Benning supporter. Aquilini isn't going to accept a 10 year rebuild and nor does he expect the fans to.

 

Not a chance that he'll be able to explain why we haven't been a true contender for a decade under the same GM and his job isn't in jeopardy.

 

Aquilini is the one who hired Linden and Benning to work in tandem. He knew what the "plan" was (whatever that was, I'm still not sure).

[-DLC-]

38 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Right now, this is how most people evaluate our organization (at least those outside the bubble):

 

OK, now I want the stats to back this up.

 

And it's not year 6....Benning hasn't even been here 6 years (I think).  For many (most) of us, it's year one-two.   Look at the actual numbers in the poll to see "it's how people (have) evaluated things".

[-DLC-]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

Every bad move made is a sunk cost, so yes, in that sense dwelling on the past accomplishes nothing.

 

However, when evaluating the management team and whether or not they should be fired soon, you definitely have to look at the entire body of work.

 

There are positives to look forward to, but not enough (yet) to suggest Benning is completely safe.

 

In this context, it doesn't matter if we started rebuilding in 2014 or 2019. The fact is that Benning is soon to be 5 years on the job, and if in the 6th we don't see something significant, I don't think anyone should be surprised if a change is made especially with someone like Aquaman in charge of things.

Here's your first mistake...when a team is "rebuilding" it's reasonable to not expect "anything significant" until that's done and then to expect to be near the bottom, not the top, as players ease their way in.   BTW, Petey is proving to be significant and a franchise player....many would have overlooked him.   

 

Now we're at 10 year?  You keep moving the measuring sticks (and it's overly dramatic, but false).  We had a cup contender 8 years ago.  After that, we had to reassess where the team was at and there was an obvious let down (as some...Kesler...were checking out).  It happens after a SC near miss.  So don't include that in the timeline, it's unfair.

 

When the Sedins retired, it was "on".  That wasn't 10 years ago.

[kanucks25]

40 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

OK, now I want the stats to back this up.

 

And it's not year 6....Benning hasn't even been here 6 years (I think).  For many (most) of us, it's year one-two.   Look at the actual numbers in the poll to see "it's how people (have) evaluated things".

This is year 5, once the season ends in April year 5 is complete. That is why I said I think we will need to take a significant step next year (which will be #6).

 

I have no stats, just that I listen to hockey podcasts and articles that cover the entire league and talk to non-Canucks fans and it's clear that when you take out the homerism, the consensus is that we surely have some exciting young pieces but so do most other teams; we're still a long way from truly contending and Benning might not have that much leash left. 

[-DLC-]

4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

This is year 5, once the season ends in April year 5 is complete. That is why I said I think we will need to take a significant step next year (which will be #6).

 

I have no stats, just that I listen to hockey podcasts and articles that cover the entire league and talk to non-Canucks fans and it's clear that when you take out the homerism, the consensus is that we surely have some exciting young pieces but so do most other teams; we're still a long way from truly contending and Benning might not have that much leash left. 

No it's not year five.

 

And quit with the homerism nonsense.  The "consensus" here is rebuild started in 2017 - but you ignore that.  And provide nothing in relation to reference of proof of your claims.  Podcasts?   The entire league has never thought we'd do well - Toronto is winning the cup every year, remember?  I don't care what the rest of the world thinks/says (at all).  

 

When you are at the beginning stages of a rebuild it's ridiculous to even factor "contending" into the conversation.  Most of us understand that.  It pays to be a homer because we're paying attention.  

[kanucks25]

35 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Now we're at 10 year?  You keep moving the measuring sticks (and it's overly dramatic, but false).  We had a cup contender 8 years ago.  After that, we had to reassess where the team was at and there was an obvious let down (as some...Kesler...were checking out).  It happens after a SC near miss.  So don't include that in the timeline, it's unfair.

Something "significant" doesn't mean a Stanley Cup. As I explained, it means something real that shows us that we're legitimately close, not just pure hope (which is what we have now). Doubt there are many examples of teams going from pure bottom-feeder to true contender the next year, usually there's a step or two in between.

 

36 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Now we're at 10 year?  You keep moving the measuring sticks (and it's overly dramatic, but false).  We had a cup contender 8 years ago.  After that, we had to reassess where the team was at and there was an obvious let down (as some...Kesler...were checking out).  It happens after a SC near miss.  So don't include that in the timeline, it's unfair.

 

When the Sedins retired, it was "on".  That wasn't 10 years ago.

I didn't say we're in year 10. I was responding to the guy who suggested the rebuild only started after Linden left because he was holding it up.

 

Maybe I read into it incorrectly, but it seemed like he was suggesting that Benning still has several years of leash after Linden leaving, which would bring the rebuilding closer to 10 years than 5.

[kanucks25]

35 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

No it's not year five.

 

And quit with the homerism nonsense.  The "consensus" here is rebuild started in 2017 - but you ignore that.  And provide nothing in relation to reference of proof of your claims.

 

When you are at the beginning stages of a rebuild it's ridiculous to even factor "contending" into the conversation.  Most of us understand that.  It pays to be a homer because we're paying attention.  

It's Benning's 5th year on the job, regardless of when we truly started rebuilding.

 

Anyone who pays attention to North American major sport in general knows that 5-6 years without real results is pushing the patience of the people in charge regardless of the circumstances. I don't make the rules, that's just precedence.

[appleboy]

31 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Yeah, that's just wishful thinking by anyone who is a Benning supporter. Aquilini isn't going to accept a 10 year rebuild and nor does he expect the fans to.

This management has done nothing that makes you think they are rebuilding. We have been drafting high because everything that Benning has done has failed. His trades have been abysmal. His UFA signings have not been much better. If it wasn't for the fact that they have hit on a few draft picks where would we be?

Take away Petey and Boeser and then tell me what Benning has done of note. Where would we be. Our defense is laughable. 

Petey and Boeser have clouded peoples minds to the truth. The truth is that Benning has been a disaster.

[kanucks25]

35 minutes ago, appleboy said:

This management has done nothing that makes you think they are rebuilding. We have been drafting high because everything that Benning has done has failed. His trades have been abysmal. His UFA signings have not been much better. If it wasn't for the fact that they have hit on a few draft picks where would we be?

Take away Petey and Boeser and then tell me what Benning has done of note. Where would we be. Our defense is laughable. 

Petey and Boeser have clouded peoples minds to the truth. The truth is that Benning has been a disaster.

Benning's done more good than just Pettersson and Boeser, for sure, but you're right in the sense that people have a very narrow view of what's going on around the league.

 

Fact is, a lot of other teams around the league have just as many if not more good pieces. It's as if they think once Petterson, Boeser, Demko and Hughes hit the prime it's time to plan the parade. It's not that easy, it's an arms race and every other team is packing heat as well.

[appleboy]

[-DLC-]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

Benning's done more good than just Pettersson and Boeser, for sure, but you're right in the sense that people have a very narrow view of what's going on around the league.

 

Fact is, a lot of other teams around the league have just as many if not more good pieces. It's as if they think once Petterson, Boeser, Demko and Hughes hit the prime it's time to plan the parade. It's not that easy, it's an arms race and every other team is packing heat as well.

It's not that we have a limited sense of what's going on around the league...it's that they often get it wrong and don't know much about us.

 

We're not Toronto fans...we don't plan the parade prematurely.  And that's my argument...patience.  

[appleboy]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

Benning's done more good than just Pettersson and Boeser, for sure, but you're right in the sense that people have a very narrow view of what's going on around the league.

 

Fact is, a lot of other teams around the league have just as many if not more good pieces. It's as if they think once Petterson, Boeser, Demko and Hughes hit the prime it's time to plan the parade. It's not that easy, it's an arms race and every other team is packing heat as well.

This team has more holes then a stop sign during hunting season. It will take another ten years at this rate. Chicago made a trade that would be a rebuild trade. They landed Strome and Perlini.   Young players with room to grow.   We are getting 25 to 27 year old duds. Or Vey, Goldy , Dahlen...………      Abysmal 

[flat land fish]

With only cup winner each year you need to give yourself as many chances as possible.  As our prospects start to mature we should have a good 8-10 year  opportunity hopefully it’s our turn.

[appleboy]

Benning was sold as some great talent evaluator but I have yet to see it. His trades tell me that he has no clue. The drafts have been getting better as they rely on Judd more and more. Bracket is the rising star. Benning needs to be replaced.