If you were wondering what the difference is between a rebuild and a retool, it's this.

[BlastPast]

This is too dogmatic a way of seeing a complicated situation, in my opinion. Either you successfully go from an older, more veteran team to a younger, improved team, or you don't. It's also not difficult to see where your ideology could go wrong somewhere along the line. Personally, I believe there are bound to be things that go suboptimally regardless of what approach is to be taken. Take Toronto, for example; they were said to be doing everything the correct way and yet they have not really accomplished much up to this point. They gutted their middle class of forward and replaced them with civil war veterans. Do you think this was part of their "master plan"? Or was it just an on-the-fly adaptation to circumstances?

Edited January 26, 2021 by BlastPast

[LegionOfDoom]

No more 3-6 year deals for roll players. 1-2 year deals, makes no sense locking up beagle rousell and myers for length when you can find a comparable player to fit the role at half cost and short term. I hope benning learned or I hope benning didn’t learn and becomes oilers next GM 

[Patel Bure]

@kanucks25,

 

Sorry for my lack of responses as I’ve been busy.   Here’s a few things off the top of my head as I try and address some of the things you said.

 

1). HF: Sorry about the HF jab.  I know you were posting over there but didn’t realize that you’d been posting here longer.  That place is completely toxic in my opinion.  Canucks “fans” over there would rather see the team lose and be proven right rather than seeing the team win and being proven wrong.  A lot of the rats that post there (MS, y2k, tantalum, etc.) are usually nowhere to be found when we are winning and yet litter the boards when we go on slumps.  Their media cousins JD Burke and friends are the exact same way.  Just a toxic toxic environment.

 

2) Canucks’ cap:  All of the Canucks’ current bad contracts will be off the books in two years with the exception of Myers (who fills a need for us on right side D).  Two years from now......

a) Miller will still be under contract with us

b) Pettersson, Hughes, Horvat, Boeser (RFA status when contract expires), Podkolzin, Hoglander, Gaudette, Tryamkin, Motte, MacEwen, and Demko will all likely be integral core players for us......that would still be considered YOUNG.  
 

So no - I don’t understand this argument that the Canucks are screwed cap wise in the long term.   Guys like Rathbone, Juolevi, and Chatfield aren’t “locks” by any means, but they could also be joining that aforementioned group.   Jake Virtanen may not ever live up to expectations, but he may also stick around for 3rd line money in two years when he becomes a UFA.  
 

Pettersson, Hughes, etc., will likely receive bridge deals to keep the internal team cap low.    
 

3) If you want to talk about teams paying big long term deals to players before having won, look no further than Toronto, Edmonton, and Buffalo.   The last eleven years have proven that cost controlled elite talent + depth = championships.  Top heavy teams with huge cap hit percentages usually lose out to teams following the aforementioned formula.

 

4) Canucks’ “bad” contracts from 2015-2019. When a team is trending downwards due to an aging core, and there aren’t enough young assets within the system to replace said core (and in our case, it was due to the previous regime’s horrendous drafting record), a team has the following options:

a) Push whatever kids in the system into roles that are above and beyond their levels in a “sink or swim” environment.

b) Sign PTO contracts to vets looking to keep their careers afloat

c) Make trades and/or sign UFA’s to unfavorable term and money so that their presence can help insulate the kids.

The mistake that many people on HF make is that they believe that signing PTO cheap vets is like shooting fish in a barrel.  It’s not.   Especially for downward trending teams.  The reason for this is that PTO calibre players are looking to save their careers and so the role has to be a good fit for them.   That’s why this whole notion of “signing PTO’s and putting them in our top 6 to insulate the kids” is an unrealistic one.  These PTO guys will get absolutely shredded in these roles and will then be out of a job in one year.   The role has to make sense in order for PTO’s to sign.  That is why we were able to sign Thomas Vanek that one year.  The role made sense for both  parties.
 

So - while we as fans can bemoan the fact that we signed guys like Eriksson, Sutter (trade), Beagle, Schaller, Roussel, and Ryan Miller, their presence actually helped guys like Virtanen, Gaudette, MacEwen, Markstrom, Horvat, and Juolevi either develop their games more in the minors or take on lesser roles during their formative period in the NHL. Even in the case of Pettersson and Hughes last year, they were being protected a lot of times from tough match ups due to our veteran presence.  Watch these past playoffs and you’ll see what I mean.   Fans in yesteryear were SCREAMING at Benning to trade Tanev in the name of draft picks, but we saw how the presence of Tanev helped insulate incoming dmen such as Hughes.   
 

5) I touched upon this befor but it bears worth mentioning:   It’s not about how many draft picks a team accumulates.   It’s about how many of these picks are being drafted and developed in the correct way, and then making a successful transition to the NHL....surrounded by a good group of vets and other young players.  (I won’t get into the “age gap” strategy that Benning was trying to employ when he got here because we will likely disagree with regards to the correlation that exists between smaller age gaps and team cohesion).

 

Anyways, that’s my rant!

Edited January 27, 2021 by DarkIndianRises

[Patel Bure]

31 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

@kanucks25,

 

Sorry for my lack of responses as I’ve been busy.   Here’s a few things off the top of my head as I try and address some of the things you said.

 

1). HF: Sorry about the HF jab.  I know you were posting over there but didn’t realize that you’d been posting here longer.  That place is completely toxic in my opinion.  Canucks “fans” over there would rather see the team lose and be proven right rather than seeing the team win and being proven wrong.  A lot of the rats that post there (MS, y2k, tantalum, etc.) are usually nowhere to be found when we are winning and yet litter the boards when we go on slumps.  Their media cousins JD Burke and friends are the exact same way.  Just a toxic toxic environment.

 

2) Canucks’ cap:  All of the Canucks’ current bad contracts will be off the books in two years with the exception of Myers (who fills a need for us on right side D).  Two years from now......

a) Miller will still be under contract with us

b) Pettersson, Hughes, Horvat, Boeser (RFA status when contract expires), Podkolzin, Hoglander, Gaudette, Tryamkin, Motte, MacEwen, and Demko will all likely be integral core players for us......that would still be considered YOUNG.  
 

So no - I don’t understand this argument that the Canucks are screwed cap wise in the long term.   Guys like Rathbone, Juolevi, and Chatfield aren’t “locks” by any means, but they could also be joining that aforementioned group.   Jake Virtanen may not ever live up to expectations, but he may also stick around for 3rd line money in two years when he becomes a UFA.  
 

Pettersson, Hughes, etc., will likely receive bridge deals to keep the internal team cap low.    
 

3) If you want to talk about teams paying big long term deals to players before having won, look no further than Toronto, Edmonton, and Buffalo.   The last eleven years have proven that cost controlled elite talent + depth = championships.  Top heavy teams with huge cap hit percentages usually lose out to teams following the aforementioned formula.

 

4) Canucks’ “bad” contracts from 2015-2019. When a team is trending downwards due to an aging core, and there aren’t enough young assets within the system to replace said core (and in our case, it was due to the previous regime’s horrendous drafting record), a team has the following options:

a) Push whatever kids in the system into roles that are above and beyond their levels in a “sink or swim” environment.

b) Sign PTO contracts to vets looking to keep their careers afloat

c) Make trades and/or sign UFA’s to unfavorable term and money so that their presence can help insulate the kids.

The mistake that many people on HF make is that they believe that signing PTO cheap vets is like shooting fish in a barrel.  It’s not.   Especially for downward trending teams.  The reason for this is that PTO calibre players are looking to save their careers and so the role has to be a good fit for them.   That’s why this whole notion of “signing PTO’s and putting them in our top 6 to insulate the kids” is an unrealistic one.  These PTO guys will get absolutely shredded in these roles and will then be out of a job in one year.   The role has to make sense in order for PTO’s to sign.  That is why we were able to sign Thomas Vanek that one year.  The role made sense for both  parties.
 

So - while we as fans can bemoan the fact that we signed guys like Eriksson, Sutter (trade), Beagle, Schaller, Roussel, and Ryan Miller, their presence actually helped guys like Virtanen, Gaudette, MacEwen, Markstrom, Horvat, and Juolevi either develop their games more in the minors or take on lesser roles during their formative period in the NHL. Even in the case of Pettersson and Hughes last year, they were being protected a lot of times from tough match ups due to our veteran presence.  Watch these past playoffs and you’ll see what I mean. 
 

5) I touched upon this befor but it bears worth mentioning:   It’s not about how many draft picks a team accumulates.   It’s about how many of these picks are being drafted and developed in the correct way, and then making a successful transition to the NHL....surrounded by a good group of vets and other young players.  (I won’t get into the “age gap” strategy that Benning was trying to employ when he got here because we will likely disagree with regards to the correlation that exists between smaller age gaps and team cohesion).

 

Anyways, that’s my rant!

@kanucks25,

 

Will add one more tidbit:  I have no problem with JT Miller and Toffoli deals as both deals helped the Canucks make the playoffs last year.   Playoff experience and/or pushing for the playoffs year in year out is also a crucial element in terms of player development.   

[kanucks25]

53 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

2) Canucks’ cap:  All of the Canucks’ current bad contracts will be off the books in two years with the exception of Myers (who fills a need for us on right side D).  Two years from now......

a) Miller will still be under contract with us

b) Pettersson, Hughes, Horvat, Boeser (RFA status when contract expires), Podkolzin, Hoglander, Gaudette, Tryamkin, Motte, MacEwen, and Demko will all likely be integral core players for us......that would still be considered YOUNG.  

I never said we're in a bad spot long-term. In two years from now, we should actually be in a very good spot barring any stupid moves between now and then.

 

Problem is, that's 9 years into Benning's tenure. Right now we're at 7 and we're waiting out bad contracts. Once again I ask, wasn't waiting out bad contracts the name of the game when Benning first took over in 2014? Granted we didn't have the young players then as we do now, but the point still stands. Having bad contracts is one thing, but having them before you've even won anything and wasting 2 of your core's prime years because of it? Unacceptable, IMO.

 

53 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

These PTO guys will get absolutely shredded in these roles and will then be out of a job in one year.

Yeah, so?

 

53 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

5) I touched upon this befor but it bears worth mentioning:   It’s not about how many draft picks a team accumulates.   It’s about how many of these picks are being drafted and developed in the correct way, and then making a successful transition to the NHL....surrounded by a good group of vets and other young players. 

Yeah but see, this really makes no sense.

 

If you think this management team is good at drafting and developing, then they should 100% be playing to that strength by accumulating picks and stockpiling as much quality assets as they can. Not because you're going to win with a team made up of only 18-22 year-old's, but because you can then flip some of those quality young assets for the win-now pieces when it's time (see the aforementioned Kings' Carter/Richards thing). Or, because your team is mostly composed of young, cost-controlled assets, you have the cap space to pull the trigger on some big-ticket free agents whose remaining good years matchup with your young core's prime (see the aforementioned Hawks' Hossa thing).

 

I know this is a "what if" scenario here but imagine we don't have, say, Sutter + Eriksson + Beagle + Holtby on the books. That's essentially enough money to retain Toffoli, Tanev and Markstrom. How does this team look with those 3 added to the current lineup? Schmidt/Tanev/Myers down the right side, Vezina-calibre goaltending, another likely 30 goals in the top-6 and Hoglander pushed down to the 3rd line creating more depth. That's a team that's ready to push now, not two years from now. I definitely give Benning credit for accumulating some really great pieces, but he's also stood in the way of his own success.

 

Or, on the other hand, this management team isn't good at drafting/developing, so much so that most of their picks are better used on already established assets. Which is fine, except that I don't know how much precedence there is for this type of plan leading to the ultimate success. And if this was the plan, it obviously hasn't worked so far during Benning's tenure.

 

TLDR: I understand there isn't one simple template on how to build a team, and assets need to be put together via several different sources, but IMO the way this management team has gone about putting together all the pieces has been very questionable. It's like if before you started a jig-saw puzzle you smushed up all the pieces and bent all the edges; you can definitely go back, straighten out all the pieces, and then complete the puzzle, but what was the point in smushing up all the pieces in the first place?

Edited January 26, 2021 by kanucks25

[Patel Bure]

4 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

I never said we're in a bad spot long-term. In two years from now, we should actually be in a very good spot barring any stupid moves between now and then.

 

Problem is, that's 9 years into Benning's tenure. Right now we're at 7 and we're waiting out bad contracts. Once again I ask, wasn't waiting out bad contracts the name of the game when Benning first took over in 2014? Granted we didn't have the young players then as we do now, but the point still stands. Having bad contracts is one thing, but having them before you've even won anything and wasting 2 of your core's prime years because of it? Unacceptable, IMO.

 

Yeah, so?

 

Yeah but see, this really makes no sense.

 

If you think this management team is good at drafting and developing, then they should 100% be playing to that strength by accumulating picks and stockpiling as much quality assets as they can. Not because you're going to win with a team made up of only 18-22 year-old's, but because you can then flip some of those quality young assets for the win-now pieces when it's time (see the aforementioned Kings' Carter/Richards thing). Or, because your team is mostly composed of young, cost-controlled assets, you have the cap space to pull the trigger on some big-ticket free agents whose remaining good years matchup with your young core's prime (see the aforementioned Hawks' Hossa thing).

 

I know this is a "what if" scenario here but imagine we don't have, say, Sutter + Eriksson + Beagle + Holtby on the books. That's essentially enough money to retain Toffoli, Tanev and Markstrom. How does this team look with those 3 added to the current lineup? Schmidt/Tanev/Myers down the right side, Vezina-calibre goaltending, another likely 30 goals in the top-6 and Hoglander pushed down to the 3rd line creating more depth. That's a team that's ready to push now, not two years from now. I definitely give Benning credit for accumulating some really great pieces, but he's also stood in the way of his own success.

 

Or, on the other hand, this management team isn't good at drafting/developing, so much so that most of their picks are better used on already established assets. Which is fine, except that I don't know how much precedence there is for this type of plan leading to the ultimate success. And if this was the plan, it obviously hasn't worked so far during Benning's tenure.

 

TLDR: I understand there isn't one simple template on how to build a team, and assets need to be put together via several different sources, but IMO the way this management team has gone about putting together all the pieces has been very questionable. It's like if before you started a jig-saw puzzle you smushed up all the pieces and bent all the edges; you can definitely go back, straighten out all the pieces, and then complete the puzzle, but what was the point in smushing up all the pieces in the first place?

I’ll respond to the rest of your post later but the Canucks *were* able to pull the trigger on some big trades using their strong prospect pool as leverage.   The Madden deal landed us Toffoli while a 1st landed us JT Miller.  Those trades in itself likely allowed us to make the 2nd round which provided for invaluable experience to our you by guys.   
 

Having said that, I do understand where you’re coming from with your post.  I am of the opinion that vets set the culture on the team and that the “age gap” problem is a legit issue that can serve as a hindrance to team chemistry (hence, Benning using 2nds and 3rds on 22-24 year old reclamation projects when he got here), but it looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree.

[TheNewGM]

On 1/24/2021 at 3:16 PM, DarkIndianRises said:

Please provide an example of a team that successfully rebuilt, and how long it took said team to do it.

pittsburg, chicago, LA ... helps to pick first over all..

 

imagine if edmonton never traded Hall? ..and even if edmonton "failed" ... they have Mcdavid..

[TheNewGM]

we would be alot better right now with markstrom also.. but I think demko and holtby can hold us in.

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, TheNewGM said:

pittsburg, chicago, LA ... helps to pick first over all..

 

imagine if edmonton never traded Hall? ..and even if edmonton "failed" ... they have Mcdavid..

vs Edmonton, Toronto, Buffalo...or the 95, 96 Senators, who had back to back 1st overall picks.

for every example, there's a counterpoint.

and the same goes for 'retool' champions - and failures. Boston. Los Angeles, Detroit...not exactly the tank nation style of re/thing / build.

[coolboarder]

On 1/24/2021 at 8:01 PM, DarkIndianRises said:

We can talk about the negatives of the contracts of Ryan Miller, Gudbranson, Sutter, Beagle, Roussel, Eriksson, Ferland, Myers, etc., but the truth of the matter is their presence allowed for the kids in our system to either play lower in the line-up (which aided in their development) or play on the farm for a longer period of time (which aided in their development).   The presence of these vets allowed for the kids to not be thrown into the fire.......unless they were ready right away (ie Petey, Brock, Hughes).

That is what I agree. I might add:  it allows for protection to their prospect  and allow them to give time to develop and can be kept for a long while on a cheap contract when they are ready and top dollars will go to Petterson and Hughes.  It also allows us to sign a couple of players that we wanted within 2 years.  (You add one player in one off-season and another one in 2022 off-season.)  You do not want to give the prospect thrown to the fire and if they fails, we start all over or even if they did well and they could become expensive for unproven, risking more one-year wonder type of players and we'd be stuck with 4-5 million for a busts after their great rookie or sophomore season because they are a marked man.   That is the danger of signing Petterson or Hughes to top dollars if they had a slow start to the season and remains that way for the whole season.  

 

The truth is that the Canucks weren't expected to make the playoffs and they were in a midst of a losing many games before the league suspended the season.   They were in a danger of falling out of the playoff spot with that slump and injury to Markstrom.  I remember the whole playoffs that they played were not sustainable in a long run with the way the roster is built.  The fans will need to chill and let them build the team even losing out Toffoli, or Tanev.  

 

I think that some of our prospects that do not make the team this season will eventually suit up for us next few years on a cheap and we still can get a couple of guys that wants to be here for cheap.  Unless you are McDavid, I don't think we should sign players the top dollars.  Petterson is not there just yet but I can see the potential of taking over the league in his prime and will command the top dollar but the way he is playing this season will save us some money, a few million dollars off then he can rebound and get the top dollar if he wins Hart or Art Ross Trophy.  It's early and he could put in a 5-pointer effort against top team in the North division to quiet our chatters about his slow start.

[IBatch]

On 1/24/2021 at 6:11 PM, nux4lyfe said:

On paper, I honestly think that we have a great team. It could be our system or coaching but the players change so much that there's no time to make any chemistry..It'll work out once they gel or someone come's in that knows how to utilize this awesome talent and that is one thing you cannot deny.

On paper we have a good forward group - one that if all players produce their career norms we firmly are in the top third of the league, top ten maybe even but not top five.   Our D is improved this year but only marginally so, and last year it was middling at best.   A lot needs to go right with OJ and one other rookie to push it into the top third of the league though.   And our goaltending is average as well - and that's IF Holtby recovers some of his best form, and Demko can post the league averages as well  - .910 like numbers.   If our team is great right now on paper, so are at least 16-18 other teams.   Cant have that many great teams at once can we?   COL, TB, WSH, Vegas etc have great teams on paper - and their is a lot of good on paper as well while considering how we match up..Dallas, CAL, TO, MTL, PIT etc etc...

 

We  do not  make for a "great" team on paper yet, but for sure we are improving in that regard, but it depends mostly on how our you core does ... so far our two best haven't been at their best.   On paper it does make for a bubble playoff team,  which is exactly where we are with the moves we made last season.  JB gave the team a chance, with a mind for the future when we can add players to push us over the top.   Given the division we are in, where the top six teams all have decent-excellent cases for making the playoffs under regular formats,  there is a reason why most had us 4-5 (not the CDC) going into the season - and it's based on paper. 

[Patel Bure]

10 hours ago, TheNewGM said:

pittsburg, chicago, LA ... helps to pick first over all..

 

imagine if edmonton never traded Hall? ..and even if edmonton "failed" ... they have Mcdavid..

Chicago and LA struggled mightily for years on end before finally winning their cups.    As I showed earlier with my LA example, they didn’t spend years upon years at the bottom tanking and accumulating high end picks year after year.  Many of the picks that ultimately assembled their core were from various rounds and weren’t even necessarily top 5 picks in the first (Doughty being an exception obviously).    The Kings, who had been rubbish since the mid 90’s for the most part, give or take a few unexpected playoff births, largely rebuilt their roster through a combination of drafting, trading, and UFA signings.

 

Chicago was pretty much the same way.  These guys were pretty much insignificant for the most part since 1997.  They struck gold with Kane and Toews but their story was quite similar to LA’s.   
 

The Penguins were also irrelevant for the most part since Lemieux initially retired in 97’.  While Pittsburgh did strike gold in the draft with Crosby and Malkin obviously, they seem to be the exception rather than the norm in terms of “teams tanking, accumulating generational superstars in a 2-3 year span, and then becoming overnight dynasties.”

 

Rebuilding, for the most part, is a long process.   Tampa from 2004-2020 and Colorado from 2008 until a few years ago are

more realistic examples of what rebuilding truly entails.  Progression isn’t a linear progress.  More times than not, teams will experience ups and downs year after year even if the moving average is ascending.

[Patel Bure]

19 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Chicago and LA struggled mightily for years on end before finally winning their cups.    As I showed earlier with my LA example, they didn’t spend years upon years at the bottom tanking and accumulating high end picks year after year.  Many of the picks that ultimately assembled their core were from various rounds and weren’t even necessarily top 5 picks in the first (Doughty being an exception obviously).    The Kings, who had been rubbish since the mid 90’s for the most part, give or take a few unexpected playoff births, largely rebuilt their roster through a combination of drafting, trading, and UFA signings.

 

Chicago was pretty much the same way.  These guys were pretty much insignificant for the most part since 1997.  They struck gold with Kane and Toews but their story was quite similar to LA’s.   
 

The Penguins were also irrelevant for the most part since Lemieux initially retired in 97’.  While Pittsburgh did strike gold in the draft with Crosby and Malkin obviously, they seem to be the exception rather than the norm in terms of “teams tanking, accumulating generational superstars in a 2-3 year span, and then becoming overnight dynasties.”

 

Rebuilding, for the most part, is a long process.   Tampa from 2004-2020 and Colorado from 2008 until a few years ago are

more realistic examples of what rebuilding truly entails.  Progression isn’t a linear progress.  More times than not, teams will experience ups and downs year after year even if the moving average is ascending.

Will throw you guys other examples:

 

Remember back in 2015 how many people predicted that the Flames were the next up and coming team after they had beaten us?   After having struggled since 2009, the Flames finally made the dance and whipped us in the first round.    They were the team on the up and up.

 

Since that time, the Flames haven’t won a single playoff round (maybe one?  Not 100% sure) and they’ve also missed the playoffs a few times since 2015 as well.  
 

It’s only in 2021 where the Flames finally look like they might join the elite.  
 

Trevor Linden has talked about the “Winnipeg Jets model” upon leaving while the HF “Canucks” fans go on and on about the Leafs, and yet both of those teams have been mediocre at best.  Have the Leafs even won a playoff round since “Shanaplan?”  
 

The Jets have made the 2nd round (Maybe 3rd round?) once if memory serves me correctly, but I also notice a lot of first round exits and/or a failure to even make the playoffs.  
 

Oilers have the best player in the game and have tanked for years.  New Jersey and Buffalo have also benefited greatly from lottery luck.    What have they done?

 

Rebuilds are long and they aren’t easy.  In the grand scheme of things, I’d argue that Benning has done a pretty good job.  

[Got the Babych]

On 1/25/2021 at 11:49 AM, oldnews said:

drama much?

 

 

 

Sick burn!

[Got the Babych]

On 1/25/2021 at 9:30 AM, Petey_BOI said:

i dont think you know what you're talking about, it's really quite simple. Instead of Jake Virtanen and OJ we should have drafted <INSERT BEST AVAILABLE PLAYER HERE> the only reason we Didn't was because Benning Didn't listen to Judd Bracket. What a God Judd Bracket is, Too bad Benning Let the wayne Gretzky of scouts go because of him being a selfish GM in wanting a say in his Draft picks.

 

That being said Jim Missed the boat this off Season, he should have known that the plague of Covid-19 was Coming and would create a great oppurtunity to get Value contracts on cheap 1 year deals. I mean literally the next pandemic has been known about for years, But we wouldn't have had that problem if he was smart enough to now you only sign free agents  to 1 year deals, if the player doesn't like it then who cares ill just sign another one EZ . There's always players available that have had bad years and will want to sign 1 year prove me deals on the cheap. at trade deadline after thier career year we can trade them for draft picks (no free Agent's will walk away for free), you have to do that because you can't lose a player for nothing, free value!!! then we insert our draft picks <INSERT BEST AVAILABLE PLAYER HERE> AND last years <INSERT BEST AVAILABLE PLAYER HERE> AND WIN THE CUP.

This seems to be copied and pasted from all your posts.

[Got the Babych]

On 1/24/2021 at 8:01 PM, DarkIndianRises said:

I’ll respond more a little later but let’s look at our current roster:

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

 

Pettersson and Boeser were picks, and Miller was acquired with a 1st rounder.

 

Pearson-Horvat-Hoglander

 

Hoglander was a pick, Pearson was basically had for McCann, a 2nd, and a 4th, while Horvat was drafted by the previous regime yet developed by the current one.

 

Roussel-Gaudette-Virtanen

 

Gaudette and Virtanen were selected by the current regime.

 

Roussel-Beagle-Motte

Motte, a young player, was had for Thomas Vanek

 

Edler-Schmidt 

Hughes-Myers (Hughes = draft pick)

Juolevi-Hamonic (OJ = pick)

 

Holtby

Demko (draft pick)

 

Coming in April = Podkolzin (pick) + likely coming next year = Tryamkin (pick).

 

Rathbone and Dipietro (pick) are also in our system.  

 

So for all this talk about the Canucks having “bled picks,” we sure do have a ton of players that were drafted and developed within our system that have successfully made the team (or will be debuting in the not so distant future).

 

Perhaps Benning and management knew that our drafting was a strong suit?  And that the way to build teams is to have an appropriate balance of kids and vets?    Seriously - what team in the league is exclusively built with draft picks and/or has a roster full of 18-20 year olds?    
 

This whole notion that Benning has “bled picks” to the point of detriment is a ridiculous one.   Look at our roster!    And yes - while I concede that some of our current vet contracts have hindered us, all/most of these contracts will be off the books in two years.....and we will still have guys like Pettersson, Horvat, Hughes, Boeser, Podkolzin, Miller, Hoglander, Demko, etc., all entering their prime years.  
 

We can talk about the negatives of the contracts of Ryan Miller, Gudbranson, Sutter, Beagle, Roussel, Eriksson, Ferland, Myers, etc., but the truth of the matter is their presence allowed for the kids in our system to either play lower in the line-up (which aided in their development) or play on the farm for a longer period of time (which aided in their development).   The presence of these vets allowed for the kids to not be thrown into the fire.......unless they were ready right away (ie Petey, Brock, Hughes).   
 

 

I realize I'm late getting back to this party (which I started). Your responses are thought out and I appreciate that. 

[180sret]

Been a fan of the Canucks since 1970 and I have to say Benning is one of our biggest assets right now. I know a few will call me batsh%t crazy, but I don't care. This is the most confident I have been with a GM in this organization. Lots of folks thinking because he's been here for 7 yrs, his times up. I can see the next (new shiny thingy) GM selling off all our prospects for "Messiers" and having to relive the fracking 70=90's teams again. I'm too old to wait that long. Give the man a chance to build us something for Christ's sake. We have NEVER had a prospect pool like he has given us. I don't care if you agree or not, just use your frickin heads and think about it. If not Chia is available lol.

[Got the Babych]

24 minutes ago, 180sret said:

Been a fan of the Canucks since 1970 and I have to say Benning is one of our biggest assets right now. I know a few will call me batsh%t crazy, but I don't care. This is the most confident I have been with a GM in this organization. Lots of folks thinking because he's been here for 7 yrs, his times up. I can see the next (new shiny thingy) GM selling off all our prospects for "Messiers" and having to relive the fracking 70=90's teams again. I'm too old to wait that long. Give the man a chance to build us something for Christ's sake. We have NEVER had a prospect pool like he has given us. I don't care if you agree or not, just use your frickin heads and think about it. If not Chia is available lol.

Well , we're in the same boat in that we're too old to be relying on hope to see a cup in our lifetimes. Probably seems like I'm in the "fire-Benning" camp, but I'm actually not. I think JB has become a pretty good GM, but I'm angry that he only recently learned that skill while GMing here over the last 7 years. I actually think this group is "above average", but with no plan building up to this, there aren't any clear options to get to the next level.

 

How is he going to build from here? Where is this prospect pool you speak of?

[180sret]

2 hours ago, Got the Babych said:

Well , we're in the same boat in that we're too old to be relying on hope to see a cup in our lifetimes. Probably seems like I'm in the "fire-Benning" camp, but I'm actually not. I think JB has become a pretty good GM, but I'm angry that he only recently learned that skill while GMing here over the last 7 years. I actually think this group is "above average", but with no plan building up to this, there aren't any clear options to get to the next level.

 

How is he going to build from here? Where is this prospect pool you speak of?

What do you mean? You expecting the cup this year? We have several prospects coming up, young guys ready to take ownership and some expiring vets. We finally have some assets to a actually sell if need be. The team is close, needs to mature a bit, Benning won't be making any big moves unless it's something we need. I think its some of the fanbase that needs to take a deep breath and just watch this unfold. You trolling about the prospect pool?  

[Got the Babych]

On 1/30/2021 at 9:54 PM, 180sret said:

What do you mean? You expecting the cup this year? We have several prospects coming up, young guys ready to take ownership and some expiring vets. We finally have some assets to a actually sell if need be. The team is close, needs to mature a bit, Benning won't be making any big moves unless it's something we need. I think its some of the fanbase that needs to take a deep breath and just watch this unfold. You trolling about the prospect pool?  

How did you get to winning the cup this year? I asked how we would get to the next level. Next level would be reaching the mediocrity the retool was striving for. 

Would still love to hear hear about this amazing prospect pool!

I'm watching it all unfold as you suggested. It's really bad.