Seven years without a clear plan from Canucks brass.

[stawns]

8 minutes ago, D-Money said:

How did those experiments work out?

 

And what does that say about the man who proposed the experiments?

They're not "experiments" they're putting a product on the ice.  Draft picks don't fill roster spots

[JM_]

12 minutes ago, D-Money said:

How did those experiments work out?

badly

 

12 minutes ago, D-Money said:

 

And what does that say about the man who proposed the experiments?

he's gone 

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

But we haven't been rebuilding for 7 years. 

 

Those 2nd rounders were tweener experiments to try to fill the prospect gap and give the Sedin's a few more years. 

 

I prefer to think of those first few years as 'little r' rebuild. Or a trickle in to a rebuild. A bit of serving two masters, sure, but we were still clearly making adding youth a priority... Just not the only priority.

 

Again, people may not like/understand that portion of the plan but...

 

1 minute ago, DSVII said:

A rebuild however, is not operating from a deficit of draft picks.

 

There is a plan yes, but the execution flies in the face of what past rebuilds are. I'm curious to see how many of these rebuilding teams we claim to emulate, like the 2009 Blackhawks, were operating in their rebuilds in terms of a draft pick surplus/deficit.

 

 

 

There's more than one way to skin a cat There's no 'right' or 'wrong' way to rebuild a team. Again, people may not like/understand the plan but...

 

What really matters is the results/destination, not so much the process. Do we have a talented, young, rebuilt core with a solid prospect pool?

[kanucks25]

10 minutes ago, aGENT said:

but more important than simply collecting them, is eventually getting/developing a few NHL players from every draft, regardless of how many you've attained. We seem to be doing just fine on that account despite not collecting 'all the picks!'

Are we? 7 players above 100 games over 7 drafts (albeit it's early for the last two especially). One of those players just got booted out of town, another got all those games in other jerseys, another got majority in other jerseys.

 

[D-Money]

5 minutes ago, stawns said:

They're not "experiments" they're putting a product on the ice.  Draft picks don't fill roster spots

Ok, then who answers for the product on the ice? Because it’s generally been very poor.

 

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

Are we? 

Yes, we are. Only the truly myopic think our drafting is anything but above average.

[Fanuck]

18 minutes ago, aGENT said:

And there's more to rebuilding a team than simply collecting picks.

True, basically look at the futility of the Coilers before Holland arrived. 

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Ok, then who answers for the product on the ice? Because it’s generally been very poor.

 

The Sedins did get another playoff birth under phase one of the plan... So clearly it worked reasonably well enough then. We got two rounds last year while still in the middle-end of a rebuild.

 

Post Sedin we haven't rushed any kids since Jake... And most of the kids seem to be developing well.

 

I mean you do have to remember this all happened in the greater context of a rebuild.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2021 by aGENT

[DSVII]

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I prefer to think of those first few years as 'little r' rebuild. Or a trickle in to a rebuild. A bit of serving two masters, sure, but we were still clearly making adding youth a priority... Just not the only priority.

 

Again, people may not like/understand that portion of the plan but...

 

 

There's more than one way to skin a cat There's no 'right' or 'wrong' way to rebuild a team. Again, people may not like/understand the plan but...

 

 

A rebuild in general though, is accelerating your accumulation of value relative to your competition, either through the draft or trades. Objectively we haven't done that in draft picks.

 

Again, the plan is sound, the execution smacks of a Ad hoc mentality.

 

 

Quote

What really matters is the results/destination, not so much the process. Do we have a talented, young, rebuilt core with a solid prospect pool?

We have a core, as you should expect after seven drafts with top 10 picks. The defensive pool however is rather shallow. We spent too much capital chasing projects (Clendenning, Pedan) and over the hill vets (Del Zotto, Gudbranson) and it is showing.

 

Is the core set up for sustained success? Though? That remains to be seen.

 

[stawns]

7 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Ok, then who answers for the product on the ice? Because it’s generally been very poor.

 

What did you expect it was going to be?  He was left with an organization full of aging players with nmc/ntc and zero prospect depth and an owner who wanted something halfway decent on the ice to keep fans around.  I question the intelligence of anyone who thought there wasn't at least a decade of pain coming off Mike Gillis' push for the Cup.  

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, DSVII said:

A rebuild in general though, is accelerating your accumulation of value relative to your competition, either through the draft or trades. Objectively we haven't done that in draft picks.

 

Again, the plan is sound, the execution smacks of a Ad hoc mentality.

 

 

We have a core, as you should expect after seven drafts with top 10 picks. The defensive pool however is rather shallow. We spent too much capital chasing projects (Clendenning, Pedan) and over the hill vets (Del Zotto, Gudbranson) and it is showing.

 

Is the core set up for sustained success? Though? That remains to be seen.

 

Again, you still have to have an on ice product.  

[Josepho]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

Again, you still have to have an on ice product.  

There are a $&!# ton of guys who can be found in free agency for free that didn't cost picks like Gudbranson/Pedan.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, DSVII said:

A rebuild in general though, is accelerating your accumulation of value relative to your competition, either through the draft or trades. Objectively we haven't done that in draft picks.

In quantity, no. In quality of players? IMO yup.

 

1 minute ago, DSVII said:

We have a core, as you should expect after seven drafts with top 10 picks.

'Should,' but doesn't always happen. There's been numerous teams with far longer runs off top drafting, including higher/lottery picks with nowhere near the success. They deserve credit for that despite dropping pretty much every draft.

 

1 minute ago, DSVII said:

The defensive pool however is rather shallow. We spent too much capital chasing projects (Clendenning, Pedan) and over the hill vets (Del Zotto, Gudbranson) and it is showing.

It's really not that bad. We have Tryamkin almost certainly returning, Rathbone, Juolevi, Woo to add to Hughes, Schmidt and Myers as well as some later round lotto tickets that will likely have a few develop in to solid depth pieces and maybe a 'surprise' in there. We also likely address it's main deficit (future top 4 RD) this coming draft.

 

And if we have to fill one hole via UFA/trade it's not really the end of the world. No team is ever built entirely off draft picks.

 

1 minute ago, DSVII said:

Is the core set up for sustained success? Though? That remains to be seen.

 

As you say, time will tell. It's arguably better set up for it than this team has ever been before Benning. We've literally never had this organizational depth. We might want to be cautious of throwing that baby out with the bathwater... 

[DSVII]

12 minutes ago, stawns said:

Again, you still have to have an on ice product.  

What is your expectation of the on ice product next year now that we will compete in 2023?

 

And do you support mortgaging the future to ice this product in a down year?

 

 

 

 

 

[DSVII]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

In quantity, no. In quality of players? IMO yup.

 

'Should,' but doesn't always happen. There's been numerous teams with far longer runs off top drafting, including higher/lottery picks with nowhere near the success. They deserve credit for that despite dropping pretty much every draft.

 

It's really not that bad. We have Tryamkin almost certainly returning, Rathbone, Juolevi, Woo to add to Hughes, Schmidt and Myers as well as some later round lotto tickets that will likely have a few develop in to solid depth pieces and maybe a 'surprise' in there. We also likely address it's main deficit (future top 4 RD) this coming draft.

 

And if we have to fill one hole via UFA/trade it's not really the end of the world. No team is ever built entirely off draft picks.

 

 

I think we've rehashed our views on this enough. But you get quality by concentrating accumulation of picks at the top half of the draft, something Benning has clearly neglected. So he's essentially cut off his right hand with his left here.

 

Quality is hindsight. Quantity is foresight before a draft. I think you're understating the amount of luck we had because seven teams passed on Hughes and four passed on Petey. 

 

Before the 2017 draft where we got Petey, the value of the picks is uncertain and the player you get is uncertain. That's why you want as many shots at the lottery as you want, because a 5th can have the opportunity to net you a stater. That is why accumulation of picks in a rebuild is a must.

 

I love him for his past potential but i have a hard time seeing Tryamkin become anything more than a bottom pairing D man here, Rathbone and Juolevi are depth. I am cheering for him and Woo to make the team though.

 

Again seven years, four years if we use the Sedins retirement as a starting point and we have weakened our center prospect pool (Gaudette, Madden) and still need to draft for D. That timeline doesn't concern you? Has Benning truly deserved getting twice the time of an average NHL GM's tenure and surpassing Quinn's tenure because he has to play catch up?

 

Quote

As you say, time will tell. It's arguably better set up for it than this team has ever been before Benning. We've literally never had this organizational depth. We might want to be cautious of throwing that baby out with the bathwater... 

Yes, the drafts and the opportunity costs are in the past. Let's focus on the now. I agree this is a good core we have and we can compete with it. but to support it?

 

Benning has just paid $3.25 million to a declining winger that is scoring at a fourth line rate in a flat cap market where contract values are supposed to be surpressed. And he promised him expansion protection and offered an NTC. He had all the leverage in the world and he could only extract $500k savings.

 

Let's see how the market plays out and how well that valuation ages, but to support a core, you want to buy the peak years of your players at cheap so you can have as many of them as possible under the cap and excel at the same time as your core peaks to compete in your window. That is getting value. 

 

Benning has not shown any ability to do this outside of his RFA contracts. And that is my prime concern with him going forward continuing his tenure as GM and him having $20 mil in cap space in the competitive window frame with Bo and Miller being UFAs in the near future. 

 

Edited April 13, 2021 by DSVII

[higgyfan]

50 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Are we? 7 players above 100 games over 7 drafts (albeit it's early for the last two especially). One of those players just got booted out of town, another got all those games in other jerseys, another got majority in other jerseys.

 

Let's look at other Cdn teams since 2014 then...

 

Leafs  4 (including a 1st & 4th)

Jets  5

Cdns 3 (including Serg who was traded)

Oil  4 (including 1st & 2nd)

=============================================================================================

Try again next year, when you will likely have top include Joulevi, Demko, Hogs, and Tryamkin (if we see a full season) Podz if he joins the team for the remaining games.

Wow! 12 players with over 100 games in 8yrs

Pretty good without ever having a single pick under 5th overall.

[higgyfan]

Just now, higgyfan said:

Let's look at other Cdn teams since 2014 then...

 

Leafs  4 (including a 1st & 4th)

Jets  5

Cdns 3 (including Serg who was traded)

Oil  4 (including 1st & 2nd)

=============================================================================================

Try again next year, when you will likely have to include Joulevi, Demko, Hogs, and Tryamkin (if we see a full season) Podz if he joins the team for the remaining games.

Wow! 12 players with over 100 games in 8yrs

Pretty good without ever having a single pick under 5th overall.

 

[kanucks25]

6 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

Let's look at other Cdn teams since 2014 then...

 

Leafs  4 (including a 1st & 4th)

Jets  5

Cdns 3 (including Serg who was traded)

Oil  4 (including 1st & 2nd)

=============================================================================================

Try again next year, when you will likely have top include Joulevi, Demko, Hogs, and Tryamkin (if we see a full season) Podz if he joins the team for the remaining games.

Wow! 12 players with over 100 games in 8yrs

Pretty good without ever having a single pick under 5th overall.

So you just picked a random amount of Canadian teams? What exactly was the procedure there?

 

"Without ever having a single pick under 5th overall" sounds tough but then you consider 5 picks between 5 and 10 lol.

[justathought]

Excellent points on both sides. It's a glass half full/empty scenario...strictly point of view at this juncture (that's my POV). 2021/22 should give a decent foreshadowing of where we'll be in 2022/23 which is when I'm expecting to get some snacks, cold beer and actually start enjoying our on ice product once again. Been around since before the NHL days, lived the ups'n'downs and believe we can be competitive very soon. Not happy with on ice now, but understand we do have a "potentially" pretty exciting cavalry on it's way.

 

Still like to see a little more size...

[RU SERIOUS]

2 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Are we? 7 players above 100 games over 7 drafts (albeit it's early for the last two especially). One of those players just got booted out of town, another got all those games in other jerseys, another got majority in other jerseys.

 

JB has done reasonably OK on drafting.  It's his Trade and signing skills that leave something to be desired.  In a perfect world I'd move Jim to Drafting exclusively and hire a SHARK of a GM to negotiate with player agents and other teams because for some reason I suspect Uncle Jim gets outwitted by many.