JB has thrown away far too many assets - needs to be replaced as GM

[canuck73_3]

33 minutes ago, lmm said:

You are missing the part where kassian is an alcoholic and was trending down because of it

and where he was in an auto accident in Montreal

"the Trade" was not the crucial point in his recovery 

I know that story very well actually, having an alcoholic in the family in almost every case no matter what you do to help they need to either hit their rock bottom or decide they want to bust their ass off and turn their life around.

 

Zack wouldn't have been any better off staying here wadr and saying mind check is hollow regarding the team is so beyond reductive it's not even funny. 

[aGENT]

23 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

So then why was this team chasing playoffs during our so called “rebuilding” years. Even you now admit that top 10 picks are are must. Good thing we have the excuse of injuries to take credit for this teams rebuild then.  

 

What you cant seem to grasp is it’s not about finding depth players with the later picks it’s about striking gold with just one. Jon cooper was talking about that just this morning on the nhl radio stating while lightning could have maybe made the team better by moving out some picks for depth. But 7 years ago that second round pick was kucherov. And 4 years ago that 3rd round pick was bradyen point. Teams get too focused on the short term and loose track of the long term value of picks those trade away. 

 

Dan Rosen followed that up with the talking about the path NYR and DET are heading today by accumulating picks. All they need it one of those picks to be a gold mine for there franchises to turn around dramatically.... and then they made fun of the leafs for trading away the pick that ended up becoming Roman Josi. 

 

 

....Rebuilding while attempting to remain competitive.

 

I'm sure I'll regret engaging as usual but...

 

Chances are you're going to largely be picking in the 10-15 range, if things go well 'rebuilding while attempting to remain competitive'.  With the odd 15-20 pick when you make the playoffs and some 5-10'ish picks when you don't. AKA the top 10 and 15 picks/players we're talking about. The argument is that you don't need to TANK to the bottom 3 to rebuild (particularly with the structure of the lotto and our luck in it), not that you don't need high picks.

 

I grasp it just fine, and now that Benning has rebuilt some organizational depth, you'll note the dwindling picks moved and when they are, they're much later picks. Again, we're not lacking in depth pick 'hits' in the organization. Another Brisebois, Lockwood and Gaudette does not make this team a current contender. Kucherov's are great and should we land one, that's fantastic but that's not a 'plan'.

 

NYR and DET were in ENTIRELY different places as organizations compared to what Benning took over. It's a poor argument.

 

 

[-DLC-]

12 minutes ago, lmm said:

I deleted my post because I did not want to defend it, but alas you and 73-3 were too quick for me.

 

Enabling would be the part where we faked a back injury for 1/2 a season to keep things quiet

Tough love would have been when we suspended him and made public his rehab (not because making it public is the issue, but because you can not suspend a player without a reason). Making it public is when the Canucks face the embarrassment and deal with the problem. 

Tough love was carried out by Bergeon and the Canadiens, not the Canucks

Ironically, or maybe not, Kassain's rehab was stalled in Vancouver, just like the rebuild, because Jim was not commited to it soon enough

 

Your example is tantamout to saying, "I have a dog that I let run in the street, when it gets hit by a car it will learn never to do that again. I am training my dog."

 

I am not "undermining the program," I am questioning the Canucks sincerety.  Jack Kassian provided the Canuck an opportunity to show leadership in this cause, they did not.  

 

If you want to see examples of teams dealing with similar problem look at Nashville and Austin Watson or New Jersey and Ken Daneyko

here is a snippit

In the late 1990s, Daneyko struggled with alcoholism while general manager Lou Lamoriello and Devils owner John McMullen stood by him and checked him into rehab.^[6] Daneyko recovered and played every game of New Jersey's successful 2000 playoffs, winning the Bill Masterton Trophy in 2000.

Initially they may have tried to baby him through it and, yes, kept that under wraps.  I'm sure they didn't fully understand the severity of things.  It's a personal thing and you don't just jump to the tough love part, it becomes a last resort when you see resistance standing in the way of progress.  We all generally come from a place of wanting...trying...to help.  But sometimes it becomes apparent that nothing we do is helping and so it then crosses over into enabling.

 

We don't know ALL the details, but I'm hardpressed to question MindCheck in any way, shape or form.  Was the team perfect in how they handled things?   Likely not.  But it's hard to get to a place where you are willing to just cut the ties and walk away and there's generally a period of figuring out involved first.  Until you abandon the ideas you had about it working...because it's the person in the downward spiral who ultimately decides that.

 

Standing by someone" (Lamoriello) as they check into rehab is fine - but Kass seemingly wasn't there yet.  So maybe those people were at the bottom already.   But believe me, when that person is "not ready", you can't force them into it and it's pointless to continue to battle with them on the issue.  And often it's not exposed for what it is because there's shame involved and it's the person suffering who probably should tell their story. 

 

Mind Check is a very valuable resource.  Any attempts to address mental health and open the discussion are so to go there was really inappropriate. 

 

 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, ilduce39 said:

I think this is the crux of it. These guys aren’t going to let it go.  Ever.  That the rebuild didn’t go the way they wanted in the beginning.   Even though it’s turned out just fine so far. 

Basically 

 

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

You don't need NHL ready prospects to compete for spots when you aren't anywhere close to winning. Having them 5+ years before you're ready to compete is just wasting years of their best and cheapest hockey.

Couldn't disagree more. You risk losing the continuity of team culture. If there aren't young guys here to take on lessons from the Sedins, Burr, Hamhuis etc, there's nobody left here to pass those things on to Pettersson, Hughes et al.

 

1 hour ago, ilduce39 said:

I could walk you through the minutia of why 20-something leadership is important over 30-something for connecting with young players but you’re just going to spin off in another myopic, binary direction. Some moves were for leadership, some were for competition, some were a swing for the fence, hoping they’d turn into a home run. Not all the moves panned out but the overall movement has been positive. 

 

and the point is, as far as development and team building: it’s working.

Bingo ^^^^

 

52 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

See my last post about Vey.. even in a failed gamble he had value as a goal for Bo to overtake.  Legitimately as well, not against a UFA on a 3 year multi million deal.  I see value there.  Not to say picks don’t have it, but those age gap guys had value as well.

 

44 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

You can sign a Vey in free-agency or pick him up on waivers, you don't have to trade a 2nd rounder for him.

Beyond the obvious mentor, culture and competition reasons for adding youth, we also had very little cap space IIRC Benning's first couple years. He needed to fill out a roster with youth on ELC's/cheap bridge deals we didn't have either of. And no, you're not likely to get Vey on waivers.

Edited March 20, 2019 by aGENT

[Generational.EP40]

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

I'm not saying you don't get quality NHL'ers elsewhere in the draft or even late in the 1st but they're statistically, outliers. And increasingly so the further in to the draft you get. Just look at the statistics of pick success by # and round. 

 

And again, we're not particularly short on our allotment of depth-pick outliers. Even without getting 'ALL THE PICKS!'

 

Look no further than our very own rebuild. I mean guys like Gaudette are great and you need to find those guys but this team is being built on the backs of guys like Pettersson, Horvat, Hughes and (yes, still first round but still a late first outlier) Boeser.

 

 

 

Yea yea no ones saying anything about that.

 

I’ll take that as you agree because you’re moving the goal posts from what I originally replied to 

[-DLC-]

2 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

This has nothing to do with 'impatience' it has everything to do with faith and I got zero faith in this management group. 

Quote

My opinion:  I have zero faith in this management to make the right decisions moving forward. 

Your take on that:   I have no patience fire everyone.

 

This has nothing to do with patience, timelines, or curves.  Benning will eventually get fired, possibly as early as next season, so I just think the sooner they bring in his replacement the better.  The scouting staff will remain the same so I don't get why everyone defends this guy. 

So "management group" is pretty general and leans more toward firing everyone than someone.

 

Also, you don't want timelines to be connected here, however, you then go on to give an "eventually" timeline to justify a firing?  And "sooner" (again, a timeline).

 

Anyhow, getting tired of hearing myself talk so will move away and just listen/read for awhile.  I'm an animal lover and this is giving way to becoming a dead horse.

[aGENT]

19 minutes ago, Generational.EP40 said:

 

Yea yea no ones saying anything about that.

 

I’ll take that as you agree because you’re moving the goal posts from what I originally replied to 

Not moving anything. It's the same point I've been making all along. Depth and role players are certainly valuable but the backbone of any rebuild relies on top players, predominately from the top of the top round. There's no getting around it.

 

They're called core players for a reason.

 

Anyone still arguing it, either still doesn't understand the point, or is only here to argue.

[lmm]

21 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Initially they tried to baby him through it and, yes, kept that under wraps.  It's a personal thing and you don't just jump to the tough love part, it becomes a last resort when you see resistance standing in the way of things.  Ultimately, we all generally come from a place of wanting...trying...to help.  But sometimes it becomes apparent that nothing we do is helping.

 

We don't know ALL the details, but I'm hardpressed to question MindCheck in any way, shape or form.  Was the team perfect in how they handled things?   Likely not.  But it's hard to get to a place where you are willing to just cut the ties and walk away.  Abandon the ideas you had about it working...because it's the person in the downward spiral who decides that.

 

Standing by someone" (Lamoriello) as they check into rehab is fine - but Kass seemingly wasn't there yet.  So maybe those people were at the bottom already.   But believe me, when that person is "not ready", you can't force them into it and it's pointless to continue to battle with them on the issue. 

 

Mind Check is a very valuable resource.  Any attempts to address mental health and open the discussion are. 

 

 

You know I really didn't want to go down this road today, and I agree with most of what you said above.

And I don't want to oversimplify things and suggest what worked for Daneyko would work for others.

I support Mind Check and Lets Talk.

 

I think the problem that I have with this discussion is the oversimplification by some posters who emphatically state, "The Canucks did all they could."

I feel they could have done more.

 

I know that you support this team for more than just the sticks and pucks, that you feel they are part of your life and community. You defend them as such, you are doing so above. When you say "baby him through" and "keep under wraps" I agree with you. When you say "... "Tough love... becomes a last resort" I still agree. Where we diverge is that I think "tough love" comes before the trade to Montreal. Facing the adversity of a suspension and stage 2 rehab, and the possibility that ZK does not return an asset, that is "Tough Love" That would make me as proud of "my team" as you are. I felt that way when Brian Burke walked shoulder to shoulder with Todd Bertuzzi into the league office.

 

[aGENT]

Ranked third in THN's 'Futurewatch'....clearly time to fire the guy in charge 

[-DLC-]

1 hour ago, lmm said:

I deleted my post because I did not want to defend it, but alas you and 73-3 were too quick for me.

 

Enabling would be the part where we faked a back injury for 1/2 a season to keep things quiet

Tough love would have been when we suspended him and made public his rehab (not because making it public is the issue, but because you can not suspend a player without a reason). Making it public is when the Canucks face the embarrassment and deal with the problem. 

Tough love was carried out by Bergeon and the Canadiens, not the Canucks

Ironically, or maybe not, Kassain's rehab was stalled in Vancouver, just like the rebuild, because Jim was not commited to it soon enough

 

Your example is tantamout to saying, "I have a dog that I let run in the street, when it gets hit by a car it will learn never to do that again. I am training my dog."

 

I am not "undermining the program," I am questioning the Canucks sincerety.  Jack Kassian provided the Canuck an opportunity to show leadership in this cause, they did not.  

 

If you want to see examples of teams dealing with similar problem look at Nashville and Austin Watson or New Jersey and Ken Daneyko

here is a snippit

In the late 1990s, Daneyko struggled with alcoholism while general manager Lou Lamoriello and Devils owner John McMullen stood by him and checked him into rehab.^[6] Daneyko recovered and played every game of New Jersey's successful 2000 playoffs, winning the Bill Masterton Trophy in 2000.

OK, breaking my silence here.

 

Don't back pedal to make it about something it wasn't.  These were your words and all the rest is just double talking now because this TOTALLY undermined the program:

 

Quote

Mind Check is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

It meant something to Bieksa while he was here, but it live on because it would be emarassing to walk away from

Even if you had a change of heart when addressed, that's what I was speaking to.  The fact that you're trying to somehow justify it means little to me.  The team did show leadership, in a "time to sink or swim" way.  And sometimes that's what's needed to get the ball rolling.

[HerrDrFunk]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

You can sign a Vey in free-agency or pick him up on waivers, you don't have to trade a 2nd rounder for him.

 

I don't argue the worth of internal competition. But to suggest it was a good idea to give up assets to acquire replaceable level players to create that internal competition is utterly laughable.

How many 23 year olds who are more than point per game in the AHL do you know of who you can pick up in free agency or waivers? Because that's what Vey was when he was traded for. 

 

It was a good idea for a trade but it didn't work out. Vey's extreme family issues probably played a part in that.

[Tre Mac]

1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

So "management group" is pretty general and leans more toward firing everyone than someone.

 

Also, you don't want timelines to be connected here, however, you then go on to give an "eventually" timeline to justify a firing?  And "sooner" (again, a timeline).

 

Anyhow, getting tired of hearing myself talk so will move away and just listen/read for awhile.  I'm an animal lover and this is giving way to becoming a dead horse.

Again you seem to think that anyone who wants Benning gone is impatient, you even typed "OMG fire everyone." And I keep trying to tell you it has nothing to do with impatience and thus has nothing to do with timelines, etc.  Also 'management group' consists of two people now: Benning and Weisbrod.  Saying that Benning will be fired eventually also has nothing to do with timelines, that's an eventuality just like the setting sun and I'll bump this thread in a year or two when it happens to prove that point.

 

Seriously, some people on here are impatient but I am not one of them.  I just don't think Benning is the right man for this team moving forward, if people want to argue that with me then let's have at 'er.

 

And to the people that bring up prospects, Benning doesn't scout and draft every single pick and no one is suggesting overhauling the entire scouting staff, it'll still be in good hands with Judd Bracket.  Also lot's of teams benefiting from a change in management before winning the cup, Pittsburgh comes to mind, maybe Chicago but I cannot remember.   

[lmm]

1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

OK, breaking my silence here.

 

Don't back pedal to make it about something it wasn't.  These were your words and all the rest is just double talking now because this TOTALLY undermined the program:

 

Even if you had a change of heart when addressed, that's what I was speaking to.  The fact that you're trying to somehow justify it means little to me.  The team did show leadership, in a "time to sink or swim" way.  And sometimes that's what's needed to get the ball rolling.

Oh Deb

I stand by my second quote

not backpedalling on that one at all.

I believed then as I do now, It meant sometning to Bieksa, but the Canucks were trying to save face.

That is not an indictment of the program that is run independantly of the Canucks

and it does not change the fact  the Canucks bailed on Kassian argue that one a little harder

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

....Rebuilding while attempting to remain competitive.

The goal was to make be competitive for playoffs and play “meaningful games in March/april”. That doesn’t equate to picking top 10. We have been the worst team in the league the past 4 years so you’re ideology on what this team has been is clearly wrong. 

 

I do like that you use a generic term like “remaining competitive” simply because it alllows you to move the goal posts however you see fit, despite logic stating this team was far from what ever you think “competitive” is. 

 

Quote

I grasp it just fine, and now that Benning has rebuilt some organizational depth, you'll note the dwindling picks moved and when they are, they're much later picks.

Aka learning on the job and understanding the value of picks. The reason the organizational depth has grown is due to us drafting with our picks so it’s ironic that you attempt to use that as reasoning. It’s not a random circumstance that NYR and DET have loaded up with picks in the midst of there rebuild. I know you want to believe otherwise but teams and people around the hockey world understand this. The only few who don’t are the select few on this board that come up with ubsurb logic as a reason to defend the past decisions. You might want to look around you select few are alone. Not even JB agrees with your line of thinking which is why we constantly see him talking about the need for more picks. 

 

Quote

Again, we're not lacking in depth pick 'hits' in the organization. Another Brisebois, Lockwood and Gaudette does not make this team a current contender. Kucherov's are great and should we land one, that's fantastic but that's not a 'plan'.

 

Sure it is. Every smart rebuild focuses on hitting a gold pickup in the later rounds. That’s exactly why teams accumulate so many picks.  Canucks accumulated them, we just stupidly traded many of them away for the notion of speeding things up. 

 

 

Quote

NYR and DET were in ENTIRELY different places as organizations compared to what Benning took over. It's a poor argument.

Haha you mean teams that were at the beginning of a rebuild like Canucks were. Yeah right totally different. Lol

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

The goal was to make be competitive for playoffs and play “meaningful games in March/april”. That doesn’t equate to picking top 10. We have been the worst team in the league the past 4 years so you’re ideology on what this team has been is clearly wrong. 

Yup, just like we're playing meaningful games this year (despite not actually being in the playoffs). And yet again, we'll likely be picking somewhere between 5-15.

 

As I said. 

 

Also like I said, if things go well. Things (particularly injuries) did not go well. Hence the picks higher on the spectrum of variability.

 

5 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Aka learning on the job and understanding the value of picks. The reason the organizational depth has grown is due to us drafting with our picks so it’s ironic that you attempt to use that as reasoning. It’s not a random circumstance that NYR and DET have loaded up with picks in the midst of there rebuild. I know you want to believe otherwise but teams and people around the hockey world understand this. The only few who don’t are the select few on this board that come up with ubsurb logic as a reason to defend the past decisions. You might want to look around you select few are alone. Not even JB agrees with your line of thinking which is why we constantly see him talking about the need for more picks. 

Nope, circumstances changing due to natural evolution of rebuild.

 

It's grown from drafting, trading and signing UFA's.

 

Yet again attempting to straw man me in to a point I never made. Nobody's against picks. This is precisely why I shouldn't engage and end up not bothering responding to your nonsense there sugarplum

 

9 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Sure it is. Every smart rebuild focuses on hitting a gold pickup in the later rounds. That’s exactly why teams accumulate so many picks.  Canucks accumulated them, we just stupidly traded many of them away for the notion of speeding things up. 

You hope. You don't plan. And again. Rebuilds are on the backs of top 10-15 picks and we're not lacking in late round gems, both are reasons why we were named 3rd in THN's 'Future watch'.

 

11 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Haha you mean teams that were at the beginning of a rebuild like Canucks were. Yeah right totally different. Lol

No I mean in that they had at least some semblance of a prospect pool, saleable assets etc. Their rebuild starting points were FAR easier than Benning's.

[joe-max]

On 3/18/2019 at 5:14 AM, ForsbergTheGreat said:

All three players were on the brink of waivers as they were all just came off there ELC.  It was make or break with all of them with no change to work with their games.  And Vey was waived he was just so garbage that no other team wanted him, and WD even stated that Sven was very close to being waived has his D game not been so good. 

There should certainly be a maximum number of reclamation projects on a team and JB has long reached that limit IMHO, but then again: you call for draft picks because they give the team a better chance to find a gem. So does acquiring a young player with potential to develop. Näslund anyone? Bertuzzi? R. Brodeur? I still fail to see the big difference but the lack of the gambling thrill.

 

On 3/18/2019 at 5:14 AM, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

But he was, he was on the very first tweet the OP posted.  

 

You wouldn't want a 22 year old center/Left wing,  who has just put up 17 goals and 31 points this season.  This team is desperate for a scoring, the fact that he can also play LW and has a bit of an edge to him makes him even more appealing to what this team needs.  Pearson hasn't looked bad but he's also on a downward trajectory just like Spooner.  

I was only looking at the last sheet as it seemed to be the one to emphasize the OPs point. We can include McCann in the discussion. He is a fine, young player, but it wasn't the Canucks who traded him to the Penguins. Today he could help the team, but it is easy to jump to one particular point in time and call (almost) any trade a success or a failure. After Guddy's scoring streak at the beginning of the year or during McCann's weaker times in Florida few peple were complaining..

 

On 3/18/2019 at 5:14 AM, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I stated the last four years (that include this year).  If you're looking for the math, in the last 4 years we've played 318 games and have 122 wins to show for it.  That's a 38.3% winning percentage and the worst in the league.  Sabres are the next in line with 124 wins in there last 318 games which is a 38.99% winning percentage.  I'll state it again. Canucks have been the worst team in the league over the last 4 years.   

I was just thinking that if you judge Benning, you should take his entire tenure into consideratino and not just the bad years.

 

On 3/18/2019 at 5:14 AM, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Ok, so let's use the Av's as examples, are the young, Mackinnon (91 points this year), Rantanen (87 points this year), and Landeskog (69 points this year) affected?  They all seems like that season had absolutely zero impact on there careers and better yet the AV got an top end puck moving D prospect out of it.,

Let's wait and see. So far the Avalanche have not won much and are currently out of a postseason spot. They have reached the playoffs three times since 2008 and won one series. They should be further along. Since 2008 they have had 75 draft picks, 7 of them played more than 100 games in the NHL. Only three of them were picked outside first round. Only four of them are still with the team (Guess who: Rantanen, Landeskog, MacKinnon and Rantanen).

 

There is another reasons why I think just amassing picks is not the best of ideas. The infamous asset management! You do not get draft picks for free, but you can lose them that way if you do not sign them. The team is currently sitting at 48 contracts, had they had let's say 6 extra picks three years ago, they would now have to decide who to sign and who to lose for nothing. Sure, the chance to find a good player with additional picks may increase, but you can't keep them all, other teams are not stupid, they won't give you a fortune for them. Same with development. Roster spots in the AHL and ECHL are limited. You will have to choose early who to support and foster and who to give up on. I'm not saying a few additional picks wouldn't have been nice, but if you talk asset management, increasing the value of the roster, I think Benning has done a pretty good job. 

 

On 3/18/2019 at 5:14 AM, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

You're probably right, that he wouldn't have been here still.  Just like we saw what happened with WD, when the team wasn't meeting its semi decent status.  but then again, i think part of the reason JB is in so much heat is because the lack of clarity.  Had they came out and did what the leafs did, or the rangers,  there might have been a bigger leash.  Again I don't really blame JB for the direction of the team that's FA. but I do feel that had we embraced the rebuild we'd be farther along that we are today.  So many teams have tried that shortcut route and have failed.  All GM's now always talk about how there's no shortcuts in rebuilding, but that seems like the path we tried to take.  

 

And i'm not saying he's terrible, I just disagree with the path we took.

Fully agree with you regarding transparency and that a different approach might have saved a year or two. Then again I believe walking the middle ground is possible if not necessary. Many imagine the rebuild like this: lose everything for three seasons, pick high and great, become a contender the next season. It is a process and people should expect several seasons of playoff misses or early postseason exits. This is where the shortcut is impossible. Players need to play together for a while, gain experience, learn losing, pick themselves up and then, when you almost give up, BÄM! They do it. I call it the Capitals or the Nowitzki path.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

26 minutes ago, joe-max said:

There should certainly be a maximum number of reclamation projects on a team and JB has long reached that limit IMHO, but then again: you call for draft picks because they give the team a better chance to find a gem. So does acquiring a young player with potential to develop. Näslund anyone? Bertuzzi? R. Brodeur? I still fail to see the big difference but the lack of the gambling thrill.

Naslund and Bert had already produced in The NHL. There was some reliability in there play and better yet neither cost us a draft pick. 

 

Quote

I was only looking at the last sheet as it seemed to be the one to emphasize the OPs point. We can include McCann in the discussion

Fair enough. 

Quote

 

He is a fine, young player, but it wasn't the Canucks who traded him to the Penguins. Today he could help the team, but it is easy to jump to one particular point in time and call (almost) any trade a success or a failure. After Guddy's scoring streak at the beginning of the year or during McCann's weaker times in Florida few peple were complaining..

Even in Florida I claimed this team could be using a player like him. We are soarly lacking skill and scoring in the top 6. Specifically on the left wing.

 

Quote

I was just thinking that if you judge Benning, you should take his entire tenure into consideratino and not just the bad years.

You said competive. Regardless of what years used it’s hard to agrue that we’ve been. We are a bottom team in the league since JB took over which is a fact. 

 

Quote

Let's wait and see. So far the Avalanche have not won much and are currently out of a postseason spot. They have reached the playoffs three times since 2008 and won one series. They should be further along. Since 2008 they have had 75 draft picks, 7 of them played more than 100 games in the NHL. Only three of them were picked outside first round. Only four of them are still with the team (Guess who: Rantanen, Landeskog, MacKinnon and Rantanen).

You brought up that the individual development would suffer. Winning is a team sport so it’s not fair to judge them on winning as they’ve carried the team to where they are now. I’m pointing out that loosing affected there individual developement zero if at all. They still managed to become elite players in the league.  

 

Quote

There is another reasons why I think just amassing picks is not the best of ideas. The infamous asset management! You do not get draft picks for free, but you can lose them that way if you do not sign them. The team is currently sitting at 48 contracts, had they had let's say 6 extra picks three years ago, they would now have to decide who to sign and who to lose for nothing. Sure, the chance to find a good player with additional picks may increase, but you can't keep them all, other teams are not stupid, they won't give you a fortune for them. Same with development. Roster spots in the AHL and ECHL are limited. You will have to choose early who to support and foster and who to give up on. I'm not saying a few additional picks wouldn't have been nice, but if you talk asset management, increasing the value of the roster, I think Benning has done a pretty good job. 

 

 

Quote

Fully agree with you regarding transparency and that a different approach might have saved a year or two. Then again I believe walking the middle ground is possible if not necessary. Many imagine the rebuild like this: lose everything for three seasons, pick high and great, become a contender the next season. It is a process and people should expect several seasons of playoff misses or early postseason exits. This is where the shortcut is impossible. Players need to play together for a while, gain experience, learn losing, pick themselves up and then, when you almost give up, BÄM! They do it. I call it the Capitals or the Nowitzki path.

Yep. No shortcuts in a rebuild. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

55 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Yup, just like we're playing meaningful games this year (despite not actually being in the playoffs). And yet again, we'll likely be picking somewhere between 5-15.

Just like every single team in the league had did up to the trade deadline. You have zero idea what competitive means which is funny, as you use that as your main sticking point. The only reason you use it is because it allows you to change the goal posts. Which is your favorite thing to do. If cancuks have been so competitive why fire a head coach....

 

Quote

As I said. 

 

Also like I said, if things go well. Things (particularly injuries) did not go well. Hence the picks higher on the spectrum of variability

And had things gone well good bye Hughes, goodbye petty. Good bye hope. 

 

Quote

Nope, circumstances changing due to natural evolution of rebuild.

 

Circumstanes have changed in part becuase of draft picks being used and filling up our pool. How do you not understand that. Too bad we gave away all those picks in the first 24 months or else that evolution could have happened years ago and not year 5 in the rebuild. 

 

Quote

It's grown from drafting, trading and signing UFA's.

Haha nope. It’s grown from drafting. 

 

 

Quote

Yet again attempting to straw man me in to a point I never made. Nobody's against picks. This is precisely why I shouldn't engage and end up not bothering responding to your nonsense there sugarplum

But but you just finished going on about how picks outside the top 15 are pieces to rebuild with haha make up your mind flip flopper. . 

 

 

Quote

You hope. You don't plan. And again. Rebuilds are on the backs of top 10-15 picks and we're not lacking in late round gems, both are reasons why we were named 3rd in THN's 'Future watch'.

Great and that was built off.......trades? Nope?  Ufa signings? Nope. Oh yeah DRAFT PICKS.

 

i love how this board hates media and calls them garbage when they rank Canucks low but rave them when they praise Canucks. 

 

Quote

No I mean in that they had at least some semblance of a prospect pool, saleable assets etc. Their rebuild starting points were FAR easier than Benning's.

Nope. Like i said benning had the picks so he had the same opportunity. He just choose to dump 10 picks in 24 months. That’s the different between there rebuild and ours. Everything else is just a sad attempt for excuses. 

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Just like every single team in the league had did up to the trade deadline. You have zero idea what competitive means which is funny, as you use that as your main sticking point. The only reason you use it is because it allows you to change the goal posts. Which is your favorite thing to do. If cancuks have been so competitive why fire a head coach....

 

And had things gone well good bye Hughes, goodbye petty. Good bye hope. 

 

 

Circumstanes have changed in part becuase of draft picks being used and filling up our pool. How do you not understand that. Too bad we gave away all those picks in the first 24 months or else that evolution could have happened years ago and not year 5 in the rebuild. 

 

Haha nope. It’s grown from drafting. 

 

 

But but you just finished going on about how picks outside the top 15 are pieces to rebuild with haha make up your mind flip flopper. . 

 

 

Great and that was built off.......trades? Nope?  Ufa signings? Nope. Oh yeah DRAFT PICKS.

 

i love how this board hates media and calls them garbage when they rank Canucks low but rave them when they praise Canucks. 

 

Nope. Like i said benning had the picks so he had the same opportunity. He just choose to dump 10 picks in 24 months. That’s the different between there rebuild and ours. Everything else is just a sad attempt for excuses. 

So much straw. and no, I wasn't just arguing that rebuilds are built off later picks...  You've succeeded in boring me yet again with your nonsense and inability to actually have an intelligent discussion FTG 

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by aGENT

[ForsbergTheGreat]

7 minutes ago, aGENT said:

So much straw. and no, I wasn't just arguing that rebuilds are built off later picks...  You've succeeded in boring me yet again with your nonsense and inability to actually have an intelligent discussion FTG 

Funny i get to have hockey discussions all the time with people actually involved in the NHL. From head scouts to head coaches to players and ex players and they all never seem to have that issue. Like i said early. There’s only the select few on this forum that believe they are able to decipher the plan of Vancouver and everyone else is “too stupid” to understand. Someday maybe you will be able to take off the glasses and think logically. Doubt it though. 

 

anyways as always when you get backed into a corner and can’t come up with a way to spin things you waive the white flag in hopes to get a few pluses.