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

[Toews]

52 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Yep well said. Detroit was the example that was always giving that you don’t need to bottom out in order to properly rebuild. 

 

You can see the theory. We had the twins and some other decent prices. If we could find some nhl ready prospects to come in a step up, there could be a smooth transition. As soon as the twins regressesed these new youth pieces would be ready to come in. 

 

So that’s what we did and we even brought in short term assets (vbrata, Miller) to give the twins even more help. The problem was twins regressed earlier than expected and the players we brought in didn’t pan out as hoped. So then we even tried to rush our own prospects in jake and McCann to try and speed up the retool even faster. Again that failed as well. 

 

It really took this team 3 years to finally admit that there was nothing left in the tank and it cost WD a job. We finally understood that no bandaids could keep us afloat and that shortcuts/retools very rarely work out. The attempt at that cost this team a few years in rebuilding. 

 

 

I can admit, I was in that group, it just took me a bit of discovery to realize I would be a hipocrite if I could claim that bottom out ruins a team whike ignoring the fact that bottoming out is the biggest reason this team is currently trending in the right direction. 

 

In fairness it’s a Canucks board so most people here use this as an escape to only praise about the positives.  But i definitely agree. And it’s not just with hockey discussion. All discussions not even here on this board. The world is becoming more and more divided. 

We can agree on the other stuff (politics) but I really don't see the point in calling someone an idiot in five different ways for sharing an opinion on *hockey*. The mods do a good job getting rid of the trolls so show some respect towards the fan who is just here to express an opinion. I was just 10 years old when I first started going online and reading discussion about hockey. I have no doubt that there are some posters who are probably not much older. So what if a kid makes a dumb post or even a thread. Someone recently told me "You can tell people they are wrong without being a bellend about it" and I have to say I concur. You can educate fans without making them feel like idiots especially for a subjective opinon whose outcome is as of yet uncertain..

Edited March 20, 2019 by Toews

[Tomatoes11]

The fact of the matter is until our core is complete, you do not piss away any picks for fringe support players. It doesn’t matter how low the odds for these picks to become anything is because fringe support players can be attained at any time through any of the other means.

 

Its basically asset management 101. 

 

There are NO negatives to keeping all of your picks. Plenty of negatives trading them away for fringe players. Not sure why that is so hard for these homers to grasp. Lol

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Tomatoes11

[kanucks25]

 

14 hours ago, aGENT said:

And my argument was never that we couldn't draft more of these type of guys, I in fact stated directly that we'd likely have a couple more depth prospects and maybe even another Gaudette +/-. Those players are great, and needed to round out a roster. But they're not the backbone of a rebuild and we frankly don't really need volumes more of that type of player. We're not short of them.

Any dope can be the GM of a team that is a complete tire-fire for 5 years and draft in the top 7 every year like we've been doing under Benning.

 

It's not hard to ice a bad team and then pick a consensus high-ranked player. You or I could do that, you don't need to be a hockey expert.

 

It's true that in the salary cap era most Stanley Cup teams' best players are their own top draft picks, but it's also true that half if not more of their cores are from their own draft picks that weren't from the top of the draft:

 

Murray, Guentzel, Dumoulin, Letang

Carlson, Orlov, Holtby

Saad, Keith, Hjalmarsson, Crawford, Bickell, Shaw

Muzzin, Toffoli, Martinez, Voynov, Quick

 

Drafting is the best way to acquire young, cost-controlled assets which are essential to any successful team under a hard salary cap.

Edited March 20, 2019 by kanucks25

[aGENT]

7 hours ago, Generational.EP40 said:

Lol I like how you’re making it seem like this is fact when it purely isn’t and something you made up.

 

If you want I can back this up with facts unless you agree. 

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.

 

 

[smithers joe]

1 minute ago, Toews said:

We can agree on the other stuff but I really don't see the point in calling someone an idiot in five different ways for sharing an opinion on *hockey*. The mods do a good job getting rid of the trolls so show some respect towards the fan who is just here to express an opinion. I was just 10 years old when I first started going online and reading discussion about hockey. I have no doubt that there are some posters who are probably not much older. So what if a kid makes a dumb post or even a thread. Someone recently told me "You can tell people they are wrong without being a bellend about it" and I have to say I concur. You can educate fans without making them feel like idiots.

some of us, older folks can make dumb posts too. take my word for that. we are all, just opinionated fans. we don’t like others telling us our opinions are out in left field. so we lash back at them. we just have to expect that, no two fans are going to think exactly the same. there will always be those for or against something. this is not a battle between right and wrong, good and evil, but our opinions against others.

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Any dope can be the GM of a team that is a complete tire-fire for 5 years and draft in the top 7 every year like we've been doing under Benning.

 

It's not hard to ice a bad team and then pick a consensus high-ranked player. You or I could do that, you don't need to be a hockey expert.

 

It's true that in the salary cap era most Stanley Cup teams' best players are their own top draft picks, but it's also true that half if not more of their cores are from their own draft picks that weren't from the top of the draft:

 

Murray, Guentzel, Dumoulin

Carlson, Orlov, Holtby

Saad, Keith, Hjalmarsson, Crawford, Bickell, Shaw

Muzzin, Toffoli, Martinez, Voynov, Quick

 

Drafting is the best way to acquire young, cost-controlled assets which are essential to any successful team under a hard salary cap.

 

Just now, 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.

 

Again, not saying those guys aren't also important but take out those team's top picks and are they still a contender/cup winner. Nope.

[VegasCanuck]

JB = Awesome GM, has us swimming in high end prospects, a lot of them from outside the 1st round.

 

Enough said!

[stawns]

1 hour ago, Toews said:

I don't think the Sedins have said that they wouldn't have stayed if the team rebuilt properly.

 

What exactly did we give them anyway? One playoff run where we got eliminated by a mediocre Flames team? The rest were lottery teams. Let's stop using the Sedins as crutches. They are not responsible for the bad decisions that were made by this organization. 

Who's to say what's "proper" and what isn't?  I'm fairly certain that if they absolutely blew it up, they'd be further behind where they are now and in peril of becoming the Oilers, Sabres etc.

[TheGuardian_]

The Canucks appear to be trying to finish .500 in points as an accomplishment.

Of course this has nothing to do with actual games won and lost, their current record is 31 W and 42 L, so a .500 wins/loss record is out of their reach but.

 

They have managed to make a top ten pick more of a wish, pure lottery luck and added a year to the rebuild.

 

Edmonton continues to teach what not to do, although this lesson was also demonstrated by Colorado, both teams made the playoffs too soon and both will/did need to do a mini blow up, drop and get great picks and then resurgence, an added 4 years of ineptitude.

[kanucks25]

41 minutes ago, stawns said:

Who's to say what's "proper" and what isn't?  I'm fairly certain that if they absolutely blew it up, they'd be further behind where they are now and in peril of becoming the Oilers, Sabres etc.

You do realize we've been the worst team in the league for the past 4 seasons, right? The only year we did okay was Benning's 1st year where most of the team was inherited.

[kanucks25]

44 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Again, not saying those guys aren't also important but take out those team's top picks and are they still a contender/cup winner. Nope.

When did I say you take out the top picks lol?

 

I said with those core players from non-top picks, you don't have a Stanley Cup team. I listed you those players from all the recent Cup teams.

[Toews]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

Who's to say what's "proper" and what isn't?  I'm fairly certain that if they absolutely blew it up, they'd be further behind where they are now and in peril of becoming the Oilers, Sabres etc.

I got to pull out my crystal ball from the attic. Then I got to polish off the dust and wait till midnight on a full moon. I am fairly "certain" it will tell me that you have no way of knowing that.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

When did I say you take out the top picks lol?

 

I said with those core players from non-top picks, you don't have a Stanley Cup team. I listed you those players from all the recent Cup teams.

You might not have a cup team without some of those depth pick players (again, nobody's saying that you don't need some of them...once again, you folks can't seem to grasp the concept, much like the 'competitive' one). You however absolutely don't have a cup team without the top picks.

 

The Penguins say hi.

 

 

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, Toews said:

I got to pull out my crystal ball from the attic. Then I got to polish off the dust and wait till midnight on a full moon. I am fairly "certain" it will tell me that you have no way of knowing that.

Nor do you that a couple extra Lockwoods, a Brisebois' and a spare Gaudette would suddenly have our rebuild complete and would be a 'better rebuild' than having some solid vets around to shelter, mentor,  and show guys like Horvat, Boeser, Stecher etc how to prepare like pros.

[stawns]

9 minutes ago, Toews said:

I got to pull out my crystal ball from the attic. Then I got to polish off the dust and wait till midnight on a full moon. I am fairly "certain" it will tell me that you have no way of knowing that.

So only "tankers" can play the "what if" card?

[kanucks25]

37 minutes ago, aGENT said:

You might not have a cup team without some of those depth pick players (again, nobody's saying that you don't need some of them...once again, you folks can't seem to grasp the concept, much like the 'competitive' one). You however absolutely don't have a cup team without the top picks.

 

The Penguins say hi.

Name a team that has won without their own drafted depth playing key roles.

 

The Penguins are not a good example, at least not their recent Cups. Their first one was probably the closest thing as it was a weird team built largely on older veterans that were brought in (and even then they still had Letang, Scuderi, Orpik and Talbot playing important role). However, this would still be considered the outlier in the group.

[-DLC-]

"Name a" .... "that one doesn't count"

[kanucks25]

46 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Nor do you that a couple extra Lockwoods, a Brisebois' and a spare Gaudette would suddenly have our rebuild complete and would be a 'better rebuild' than having some solid vets around to shelter, mentor,  and show guys like Horvat, Boeser, Stecher etc how to prepare like pros.

You don't have to trade draft picks to acquire said "pros".

 

Not to mention Benning inherited quite a few and retained many in his first few years, still has a couple remaining in Edler and Tanev.

 

Let guys like Richardson, Matthias and Hamhuis walk for nothing.

[kanucks25]

38 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

"Name a" .... "that one doesn't count"

Basing a plan around an outlier is like choosing "professional lottery winner" as a career.

 

You might get lucky but chances are it's going to lead to failure.

[ilduce39]

4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Basing a plan around an outlier is like choosing "professional lottery winner" as a career.

 

You might get lucky but chances are it's going to lead to failure.

That’s a pretty rich statement considering the long shot odds of selling your assets and tanking for lottery picks / accumulating long shot depth picks.