Seven years without a clear plan from Canucks brass.

[alucard]

30 minutes ago, DSVII said:

Even if we've been rebuilding since 2017, we've been doing it on a half tank of fuel in terms of draft capital. I still don't know why JB is so allergic to acquiring picks when it's his greatest strength. 

Gold truth, he trades his 2nd rounds like it is nothing, such a weird thing.

he even trades first rounds. WTF.

Edited May 9, 2021 by BENN

[aGENT]

6 hours ago, appleboy said:

It is difficult to see any real thought process being put to work here. LOL

 

There are people on this site that would like us to think that we are just not smart enough to understand the depth of what Jim is doing . None of us have the hockey IQ to understand the complexity of what this management has accomplished. 

 

Right "Agent".

Have the balls to @ someone.

 

And your smart enough, I never said you weren't. Willfully obtuse to suit a narrative however... That's right up some of your alleys.

 

2 hours ago, DS4quality said:

Even if we did start our rebuild 4 years ago teams like Ottawa,  and the Rangers seem to have moved passed us in their rebuilds. 

I'd like John Davidson to help fix this team 

Saleable assets. Vastly different starting points. Different plans. Different situations.

 

2 hours ago, BPA said:

From the perspective of an owner, it is always the goal to make the playoffs.  That is where they make the most revenue.  Once in the playoffs, there's probably an increase in merchandise sales as well.  So it's quite possible that Aquilini wanted a rebuild AND make the playoffs.  Best of both worlds. 

Ding, ding, ding...

 

Agreed upon plan with ownership. Rebuild as the main priority while attempting to remain somewhere closer to a bubble team in the process. People may not like it or choose not to understand it, but that is/has been the plan, all along. And in many ways was dictated by what the roster (and prospect pool...or lack thereof) looked like when Benning got here.

Edited May 9, 2021 by aGENT

[oldnews]

37 minutes ago, DSVII said:

I think that is a narrative that has been pushed onto this market by media and ownership rather than any fan consensus.

 

I wish we had access to the data but I wouldn't be surprised if season ticket holder subscriptions cratered with that unrealistic playoff expectation in 2016 and picked up again in 2017 when we actually began some semblance of a rebuild and got Petey.

 

Remember how big of a deal it was for the fanbase for Linden to be honest with us and to actually use the word rebuild? This market was willing to tolerate a retool, but with little to show from the 2016 draft and the team still bottoming out, that attitude shifted to a full rebuild.

 

Also, I haven't really remembered any conversation about playoff results being the end all be all with anyone on any forums or any fans during the 2015-17 era. I do remember arguing with posters who said we need to make playoffs to give our youth experience (at the time we had Bo and Boeser only from this current core) but never that they expect this team to go deep into playoffs while the Sedins are here..

 

How many fans are still here despite bottom 10 finishes in the last seven years and how many more bought into getting Petey and Hughes. 

 

 

There were a whole lot of people that believed the Canucks were trying to make another run - that by 'remaining competitive' management was thinking that group had another playoff/potential Cup run in them.  To me that's a spin - that doesn't look realistically at the state of the franchise when Benning et al stepped in.

You still see it to this day - that simplistic either/or mentality that believes ownership thought another cup run was coming vs 'the fans', who allegedly wanted a #proper "rebuild".

 

I think Linden deserves a whole lot of credit for what he managed to do - to turn the franchise around - within the limitations he was working with.

 

But the whole 'Benning thought the team could continue to contend' - did the opposite of rebuild thing - was repeated endlessly (still is, ironically, by some simplistic either/or takes - yet another one of them in recent posts in this thread ).   That simplistic take was/is further 'substantiated' by the belief that not dumping all the veterans, not 'tearing it down' and signing an LE for example, signalled that avoidance of a #proper-rebuild.

Personally I don't think a tear down was a realistic option - for a number of reasons (I've stated before).

The thing is - if you ask the #proper-rebuilders how exactly that 'should have' taken place, they lack answers - can't deal with real context - act as if they could have just flipped all the Sedins, Burrows, Hansens, etc from the get-go - oblivious to the reality at the time.

 

A 'retool' was never really an option - and that's not really what they gameplanned imo.

The Sedins were too old to continue to be the 'core' of a retool/quick-fix attempt to re-contend.

I never found that a believable take/criticism of what they were doing.

The reality as I see it - they came off a disaster of an experiment with Tortorella - their entire 'asset base' was devalued in the process - they had an older core than most of the other competitive teams - and with the exception of Horvat, had done very little to transition to a succeeding core.  The priority was clearly to contend as long as possible - the time to acknowledge that was no longer viable - was before Tortorella - not after.  That hard-headed season arguably cost the team (at least) a couple years imo.

 

Linden/Benning came in - they moved what they could of the previous veteran group - without a great deal of return - moderate, mid range value in most cases.

 

The real work was almost exclusively ahead of them - in the need to draft and develop a succeeding core.  There are no real shortcuts around that imo - and if anything, they had existing obstacles to deal with - a lot of veterans with contending era contracts - that included limiting clauses - and were difficult to move after the team's horrible performance under Tortorella.  Was there any point attempting to move the Sedins to hasten the process?  

There was a long-game transition ahead - imo the only 'realistic' option for them moving forward.

It took time - it started coming together nicely last year - it faced a number of challenges heading into and throughout this year - but all things considered, I think anyone with realistic, in context expectations don't have a lot of reason to protest. 

 

I couldn't care less about media narratives. A realistic assessment of the post-Tortorella road forward - was not a pretty one, no matter how one slices it.  Don't expect a management group to step in and run it's asset base down with 'realism' though - that's not their job - and it wasn't Tortorella's either - what he did was counterproductive and damaging - and not surprisingly, his act hasn't really served the Columbus Blue Jackets either - who have radically underperformed throughout his tenure there.

This team  - this fanbase - was not going to get a retool/re-contend - and it wasn't going to get the counterpoing tear-down either - wasn't going to get a quick trip back to the Finals, or a short-term 'rebuild' - neither of those were in the cards.  People can (continue) to judge the progress on those kinds of fantasy takes - for me, it was a long-game, metered transition that they needed to execute - and I think they're doing reasonably well with that - I'm ok with the "plan" - because I don't think any other approach could have/would have yielded different results.   Their best players - are still 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 years old - and for me, the "best" way forward is to continue to do exactly what underlies the successful parts of the transition thus far = keep drafting and developing a steady stream of incoming young talent - there's no better base for a franchise - and don't alter that course due to perceived 'stages' - keep on and playing the long game.

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by oldnews

[Fred65]

On 5/7/2021 at 3:46 PM, oldnews said:

And with all due respect, they did turn around in a hurry.

 

They went from 25th in the league to 48-29-5 = 101 pts in 2014/15, 2nd in the Pacific...

 

Try a different angle.

 

That's not difficult we've failed for 7 years, again and again and again. There's little fun attending the canucks game at Rogers

[oldnews]

Just now, Fred65 said:

That's not difficult we've failed for 7 years, again and again and again. There's little fun attending the canucks game at Rogers

I had a bloody good time watching them knock off Minnesota, and then the defending Stanley Cup Champions - and then watching Demko have an outstanding debut backstopping a limping team to game 7 against a team as good and deep as Vegas - within a Boeser rush goal of a miracle result there.

 

But whatever - if your perspective is failure, failure, failure, no fun - not sure why you bother with it.

[24K PureCool]

12 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

That's not difficult we've failed for 7 years, again and again and again. There's little fun attending the canucks game at Rogers

You are exhibit A of Vancouver can't handle a rebuild. 

[wallstreetamigo]

Its always interesting to me that Benning supporters can argue these 3 points at the same time while not assigning any responsibility to him in its failure:

 

1. We actually re-tooled to give the Sedins a shot at winning and didn't start rebuilding until the Sedins retired. But at the same time, due to the shambles Gillis left behind, no one should have expected the team to actually contend come playoff time. So, what was the point then?

 

2. After they retired, Benning made the right rebuild call signing overaged and overpriced UFA players to 4-6 year terms with trade protection in their contracts. While proclaiming publicly he signed them because they were needed to push for the playoffs. Pretty much the opposite of an actual rebuild but that fact is lost on Benning supporters.

 

3. Other teams have rebuilt faster and more effectively only because they had "saleable assets" and the Canucks didnt. Well, why did Benning sign or trade for all those untradeable assets then?

 

How do those 3 jive to all be someone else's fault other than Benning?

 

The guy is not the only reason the Canucks have sucked for 7 years but he is a big part of why.

[Fred65]

2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Its always interesting to me that Benning supporters can argue these 3 points at the same time while not assigning any responsibility to him in its failure:

 

1. We actually re-tooled to give the Sedins a shot at winning and didn't start rebuilding until the Sedins retired. But at the same time, due to the shambles Gillis left behind, no one should have expected the team to actually contend come playoff time. So, what was the point then?

 

2. After they retired, Benning made the right rebuild call signing overaged and overpriced UFA players to 4-6 year terms with trade protection in their contracts. While proclaiming publicly he signed them because they were needed to push for the playoffs. Pretty much the opposite of an actual rebuild but that fact is lost on Benning supporters.

 

3. Other teams have rebuilt faster and more effectively only because they had "saleable assets" and the Canucks didnt. Well, why did Benning sign or trade for all those untradeable assets then?

 

How do those 3 jive to all be someone else's fault other than Benning?

 

The guy is not the only reason the Canucks have sucked for 7 years but he is a big part of why.

You simply have to accept they aren't rational thinkers. They cheerleaders rather than fans. I'm just glad they're not airline pilots or surgeons 

[Gawdzukes]

I detest seeing this childish title every time I click on Canucks talk.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

I detest seeing this childish title every time I click on Canucks talk.

I detest cheap scotch, but that doesn’t mean I’m not drinking it. 

seriously, we do have a plan.  Turnover the roster to a younger core group.  Let’s see if we are doing that.

Petey, Hogs, Pods, Lind, and Gads and Lock coming.  (Bo is young, but he’s an old soul) 

Hughes, OJ, Bone, and Woo coming.

Demko

looking to me like the plan is actually coming to fruition.  

[wallstreetamigo]

I would like to see how the Canucks D looks without Edler for a few games tbh.

 

Hughes-Hamonic

Juolevi-Schmidt

Rathbone-Myers

 

See if this group, handling bigger, more important minutes, looks like it couldbe the way foreard before automatically signing Edler.

 

PP units until the end of the year should be:

PP1 - Miller-Horvat-Boeser-Hughes-Rathbone

PP2 - Pearson-Lind-Hogs-Juolevi-Schmidt

 

I mean, lets see what they could do. Wouldn't even mind seeing Graovac get a look there tbh. I like his game actually.

[wallstreetamigo]

I have a feeling Rathbone looking good means Juolevi will be the next young guy traded for spare parts and Edler will be re-signed. Hope I am wrong as we have waited a long time for this kid to look like an NHL player.

[kanucks25]

6 hours ago, oldnews said:

a market that wanted both a rething and playoff results at the same time - and rides the contradiction endlessly.

Don't blame the market for the incompetence of management.

 

6 hours ago, oldnews said:

but, but EP and Hughes are already in their primez!  we shoulda won by now...

 

guess what - you guys share the exact expectations as Benning's boss, that you also complain endlessly about. 

 

If you want to understand "the plan" - sort out your own contradictions first, and then you might begin to glimpse it.

 

the ironing is delicious.   take a position (or just whinge endlessly about nothing, whatever).

Not sure what any of this means. Seems as if the only point is to be longwinded in the hopes of muddying the argument, which is pretty much your calling card. 

 

So back to the original issue:

 

Since you referenced that first year under Benning as "turning it around quickly" successfully, what happened after? Or was the plan always to "turn it around" into a first round exit and then be a gongshow afterwards?

 

 

[oldnews]

39 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Don't blame the market for the incompetence of management.

 

Not sure what any of this means. Seems as if the only point is to be longwinded in the hopes of muddying the argument, which is pretty much your calling card. 

 

So back to the original issue:

 

Since you referenced that first year under Benning as "turning it around quickly" successfully, what happened after? Or was the plan always to "turn it around" into a first round exit and then be a gongshow afterwards?

 

 

 

read the third post on this page - I imagine you already have, but that's the 'short version' of a question that has been beaten to death.

or read one of the many threads you've retreaded here - this snowtire has been done umpteen times before on these boards.

Edited May 9, 2021 by oldnews

[appleboy]

6 hours ago, oldnews said:

There were a whole lot of people that believed the Canucks were trying to make another run - that by 'remaining competitive' management was thinking that group had another playoff/potential Cup run in them.  To me that's a spin - that doesn't look realistically at the state of the franchise when Benning et al stepped in.

You still see it to this day - that simplistic either/or mentality that believes ownership thought another cup run was coming vs 'the fans', who allegedly wanted a #proper "rebuild".

 

I think Linden deserves a whole lot of credit for what he managed to do - to turn the franchise around - within the limitations he was working with.

 

But the whole 'Benning thought the team could continue to contend' - did the opposite of rebuild thing - was repeated endlessly (still is, ironically, by some simplistic either/or takes - yet another one of them in recent posts in this thread ).   That simplistic take was/is further 'substantiated' by the belief that not dumping all the veterans, not 'tearing it down' and signing an LE for example, signalled that avoidance of a #proper-rebuild.

Personally I don't think a tear down was a realistic option - for a number of reasons (I've stated before).

The thing is - if you ask the #proper-rebuilders how exactly that 'should have' taken place, they lack answers - can't deal with real context - act as if they could have just flipped all the Sedins, Burrows, Hansens, etc from the get-go - oblivious to the reality at the time.

 

A 'retool' was never really an option - and that's not really what they gameplanned imo.

The Sedins were too old to continue to be the 'core' of a retool/quick-fix attempt to re-contend.

I never found that a believable take/criticism of what they were doing.

The reality as I see it - they came off a disaster of an experiment with Tortorella - their entire 'asset base' was devalued in the process - they had an older core than most of the other competitive teams - and with the exception of Horvat, had done very little to transition to a succeeding core.  The priority was clearly to contend as long as possible - the time to acknowledge that was no longer viable - was before Tortorella - not after.  That hard-headed season arguably cost the team (at least) a couple years imo.

 

Linden/Benning came in - they moved what they could of the previous veteran group - without a great deal of return - moderate, mid range value in most cases.

 

The real work was almost exclusively ahead of them - in the need to draft and develop a succeeding core.  There are no real shortcuts around that imo - and if anything, they had existing obstacles to deal with - a lot of veterans with contending era contracts - that included limiting clauses - and were difficult to move after the team's horrible performance under Tortorella.  Was there any point attempting to move the Sedins to hasten the process?  

There was a long-game transition ahead - imo the only 'realistic' option for them moving forward.

It took time - it started coming together nicely last year - it faced a number of challenges heading into and throughout this year - but all things considered, I think anyone with realistic, in context expectations don't have a lot of reason to protest. 

 

I couldn't care less about media narratives. A realistic assessment of the post-Tortorella road forward - was not a pretty one, no matter how one slices it.  Don't expect a management group to step in and run it's asset base down with 'realism' though - that's not their job - and it wasn't Tortorella's either - what he did was counterproductive and damaging - and not surprisingly, his act hasn't really served the Columbus Blue Jackets either - who have radically underperformed throughout his tenure there.

This team  - this fanbase - was not going to get a retool/re-contend - and it wasn't going to get the counterpoing tear-down either - wasn't going to get a quick trip back to the Finals, or a short-term 'rebuild' - neither of those were in the cards.  People can (continue) to judge the progress on those kinds of fantasy takes - for me, it was a long-game, metered transition that they needed to execute - and I think they're doing reasonably well with that - I'm ok with the "plan" - because I don't think any other approach could have/would have yielded different results.   Their best players - are still 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 years old - and for me, the "best" way forward is to continue to do exactly what underlies the successful parts of the transition thus far = keep drafting and developing a steady stream of incoming young talent - there's no better base for a franchise - and don't alter that course due to perceived 'stages' - keep on and playing the long game.

 

I actually agree. They never thought that they could contend. What Linden did say was that it would be unfair to the twins to put them through a complete tear down. So they added Miller and tinkered a bit so the twins could finish their career some what competitive. 

No matter how you swing it those few years put a rebuild of any substance off for several years. 

People who Jim has been rebuilding for 7 years must take the last years of the Sedins into the equation for determining what Jim has done.

[oldnews]

37 minutes ago, appleboy said:

I actually agree. They never thought that they could contend. What Linden did say was that it would be unfair to the twins to put them through a complete tear down. So they added Miller and tinkered a bit so the twins could finish their career some what competitive. 

No matter how you swing it those few years put a rebuild of any substance off for several years. 

People who Jim has been rebuilding for 7 years must take the last years of the Sedins into the equation for determining what Jim has done.

Linden was between a rock and a hard place imo.

 

You're not going to be able to move the Sedins - for various reasons.

You're also not going to entirely bottom out / "tank" with them still around.

At the same time,  a bunch, if not all their veterans, particularly guys like Burrows, Hansen, Edler, Hamhuis - were coming off the worst year of their career - you just weren't going to get much, if anything for 15 pt Burrows, 20 pt Hansen....they literally needed to rehabilitate the value of a lot of their (previously) tradeable assets - and most of them had limiting clauses as well.

 

Easy to say "tear it down" from an armchair - or ignore the specifics of the context that Linden and Benning stepped into - but most of the revisionary takes - are fantasy material - and dishonest / ignorant of the reality.

 

My first question to that crowd would be what they proposed to do with the Sedins and the rest of that core.  Realistically there were a few tradeable assets - Kesler, Bieksa, Garrison...ie the players that were actually dealt.

Even if they 'tore it down' - what did they have to throw into those vacancies?  Next to nothing - it would have been a number of years of placeholders regardless.

 

The reality is that the Tortorella experiement cost them at the very least a couple more years of idling - and none of that had a whiff to do with Linden or Benning.

 

Now - on the other side of a transition is drafting and developing - in the end, what you absolutely need to excel at - regardless.

People can complain about their first pick - fair enough grounds for criticism - but they also nailed their next 4 picks - and the future starter for this franchise, in that draft.  Hypothetically, even if we cherry pick in hindsight an alternative to the Virtanen pick - what player taken after him changes the trajectory of this franchise? (Pastrnak perhaps being one, but reaching to #25 is just that...)

The next year - after 'turning' that group around - they nailed the Boeser pick - and have done pretty well since.

 

In any event, the reality is that no matter how anyone slices this revision - not one player selected in the Linden/Benning era have reached their prime - no matter how impatient people are, there's literally nothing that could have / should have / would have done to change that.

 

That management group started from virtually ground zero - is not negative ground, below ground zero - a post Tortorella gongshow - and further, we don't really know what the imperatives/directives they were working under.... None of that has to do with 'excuses' - Idgaf about excuses - I'm not accountable for any of it, don't 'identify' with management - but at the same time, I assess them in context and try to be fair regarding the circumstances they were working with.

 

Personally I'd bring Linden back again in a heartbeat - and hire him to do his job all over again if in the same circumstances - and Benning likewise, in spite of some losses/moves that did not turn out - because for me, it's the long game that really matters, and what is at the basis of that is their drafting and development - which I have no overall complaints about - in fact I think they've been on the right track.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by oldnews

[wallstreetamigo]

8 hours ago, appleboy said:

I actually agree. They never thought that they could contend. What Linden did say was that it would be unfair to the twins to put them through a complete tear down. So they added Miller and tinkered a bit so the twins could finish their career some what competitive. 

No matter how you swing it those few years put a rebuild of any substance off for several years. 

People who Jim has been rebuilding for 7 years must take the last years of the Sedins into the equation for determining what Jim has done.

Not many people are saying the Canucks have been rebuilding for 7 years. Most were calling for it long before it happened actually.

 

Signing a bunch of UFA guys to 4 year or more terms with trade protection. Its always been a band aid on a broken leg approach.

 

It actually seems like Benning did not expect his draft picks like EP to be good 3 years early. He was signing ufa back then like he thought next season would be when the young core would finally be ready to take over.

[appleboy]

10 hours ago, oldnews said:

Linden was between a rock and a hard place imo.

 

You're not going to be able to move the Sedins - for various reasons.

You're also not going to entirely bottom out / "tank" with them still around.

At the same time,  a bunch, if not all their veterans, particularly guys like Burrows, Hansen, Edler, Hamhuis - were coming off the worst year of their career - you just weren't going to get much, if anything for 15 pt Burrows, 20 pt Hansen....they literally needed to rehabilitate the value of a lot of their (previously) tradeable assets - and most of them had limiting clauses as well.

 

Easy to say "tear it down" from an armchair - or ignore the specifics of the context that Linden and Benning stepped into - but most of the revisionary takes - are fantasy material - and dishonest / ignorant of the reality.

 

My first question to that crowd would be what they proposed to do with the Sedins and the rest of that core.  Realistically there were a few tradeable assets - Kesler, Bieksa, Garrison...ie the players that were actually dealt.

Even if they 'tore it down' - what did they have to throw into those vacancies?  Next to nothing - it would have been a number of years of placeholders regardless.

 

The reality is that the Tortorella experiement cost them at the very least a couple more years of idling - and none of that had a whiff to do with Linden or Benning.

 

Now - on the other side of a transition is drafting and developing - in the end, what you absolutely need to excel at - regardless.

People can complain about their first pick - fair enough grounds for criticism - but they also nailed their next 4 picks - and the future starter for this franchise, in that draft.  Hypothetically, even if we cherry pick in hindsight an alternative to the Virtanen pick - what player taken after him changes the trajectory of this franchise? (Pastrnak perhaps being one, but reaching to #25 is just that...)

The next year - after 'turning' that group around - they nailed the Boeser pick - and have done pretty well since.

 

In any event, the reality is that no matter how anyone slices this revision - not one player selected in the Linden/Benning era have reached their prime - no matter how impatient people are, there's literally nothing that could have / should have / would have done to change that.

 

That management group started from virtually ground zero - is not negative ground, below ground zero - a post Tortorella gongshow - and further, we don't really know what the imperatives/directives they were working under.... None of that has to do with 'excuses' - Idgaf about excuses - I'm not accountable for any of it, don't 'identify' with management - but at the same time, I assess them in context and try to be fair regarding the circumstances they were working with.

 

Personally I'd bring Linden back again in a heartbeat - and hire him to do his job all over again if in the same circumstances - and Benning likewise, in spite of some losses/moves that did not turn out - because for me, it's the long game that really matters, and what is at the basis of that is their drafting and development - which I have no overall complaints about - in fact I think they've been on the right track.

 

 

I was part of the group who wanted a complete tear down. We wanted it done quickly. Those were the years that had exceptional draft classes coming. One had McDavid and you know who was in the next.  Plus they were deep.Those were the years that could have helped start a fast turn around. I felt for the twins but what about the fans who have paid the salaries for players over the last 50 years. Did we deserve the last 7 years?

 

That is all water under the bridge. Now let's finish this rebuild properly.  I hope for no more than two more wins this year. That is all I ask for.

[oldnews]

4 hours ago, appleboy said:

I was part of the group who wanted a complete tear down. We wanted it done quickly. Those were the years that had exceptional draft classes coming. One had McDavid and you know who was in the next.  Plus they were deep.Those were the years that could have helped start a fast turn around. I felt for the twins but what about the fans who have paid the salaries for players over the last 50 years. Did we deserve the last 7 years?

 

That is all water under the bridge. Now let's finish this rebuild properly.  I hope for no more than two more wins this year. That is all I ask for.

You wanted something that wasn't really a possibility whatsoever - as pointed out.  The team had 101pts in the McDavid draft year....I'll get to the rest of why that wasn't gonna happen in a minute.

 

If it was all "water under the bridge" it wouldn't remain the most tedious, overcooked topic on these boards - the obsession with Benning's 'failures' is the subject of thread after thread, banners trailing airplanes over the city - virtually every thread on these boards hijacked with protests over things as dead horse as the LE signing.

 

The only chance of you having gotten what you wanted would have been for ownership to either retain Mike Gillis - and allow him to transition that group while it was still a VERY good team (something he signaled a necessity for when he dealt Schneider and drafted Horvat - that the team needed to, at the very least, divide their priorities and start adding futures (perhaps Gillis was not the guy for that task, judging by the drafting record under him - but at least he recognized what was pending...)

 

I'm not going to speculate about who was making what calls at that stage - but it's clear that there were some real disjoints at/between ownership/management/and coaching levels...no need to speculate about that - Tortorella went full laundry in public throwing Gillis and the roster under the bus - while failing wildly to coach effectively what he inherited/the group he had to work with.

 

The year before Tortorella they were 26-15 - and first in the Northwest.  Vigneault was coaching that group - the Sedins and Malhotra were their oldest skaters at 32 - Luongo was still here....

 

How realistic is it for an owne to authorize a tear down at that point?   At the same time, instead of 'retooling' or at least dividing their priorities - to the future - they brought in Tortorella (a decision that had precisely zero 'Mike Gillis' written on it.  And needless to say that cost the franchise that season, cost them any chance of moving most of the veteran assets that would need to be dealt in order to 'retool' or "properly rebuild"....Enter Linden with a roster full of radically devalued assets (ie the Sedins lead the team with 50 and 47 pts...the roster was weighted with players that would be extremely difficult to move, if not cost them assets to move (not exactly how anyone wants to launch a 'rething'.)  

 

But none of that registers with the crowd -  a loud crowd in this market - with their fingers in their ears throughout this tenure - who want what they want - and blame the second and thirds in command.

 

If we're going to whine about an alleged 7 years 'without a plan' - that should be taken further - to "2013 - the beginning of the end of the Canucks chances for a "#proper" / effective transition".....which set them back to bottoming out in 2016.  The ludicrous terminology of 'tank nation' - the "unintentional tank" - applies only to the Tortorella season - the death of the contendng era was written on the wall.  The unavoidable tank is what followed - and given the reality of what brought them to that point, I'm fine with Linden's plan - I think it was pretty clearly the best, if not only realistic approach moving forward - and in the end I prefer a protracted, metered rething where the team does not stockpile for a mere season or two, and then bumb rush a 'window' of contention.  I'd much rather they maintain a consistent compliment of drafting and development - and hope they maintain that approach even after this roster is predominantly their own picks and prospects developed through the system.  Stay the course - and stay the course even after rising to consistently competitive/contending. 

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by oldnews

[wallstreetamigo]

Does all this rambling shifting blame onto Linden rather than Benning factor in that Linden wanted a true rebuild and was fired for it?

 

Summer 2018 seemed to be the true divergence/power struggle that led to Linden's exit. Look at those signings. Right after, Linden was fired. So its not a real leap to suggest the guy who wanted the band aid on the broken leg plan was the one left standing. Further proven by the continuation of a similar signing strategy since.

 

Its incredulous to me that in the never ending quest to absolve Benning of responsibility for his mistakes, his supporters will twist reality like that.

 

Consider the source though.