Media Availability with GM JB and Head Coach Green (& Follow Up With JB on 650)

[tas]

48 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

You havent debunked what i just wrote because its simply fact.

 

If you actually take a look at how other teams rebuild, its pretty obvious Benning has never been in a true rebuild here.

 

He just said he was so that people who have no ability to actually evaluate that statement vs the actual moves and decisions made would happily crow from the rooftops about it.

who gave you the power to create the authoritative definitions for arbitrary buzzwords?  what a ridiculous line of reasoning. 

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, tas said:

who gave you the power to create the authoritative definitions for arbitrary buzzwords?  what a ridiculous line of reasoning. 

A rebuild or a retool are not really arbitrary buzzwords. They are two very different approaches and each has its own widely accepted approach that is clear and easy to define.

 

Rebuilding teams do not just draft high. Thats actually able to be a hallmark of a rebuild or a retool because it largely depends on actual results rather than a set strategy.

 

Not very many teans historically have purposely tanked their results to draft high. Nor should they. The teams that have typically dont have it work out as expected.

 

There is nothing wrong with either strategy really. They both work or dont work depending on many other factors.

 

But a rebuild involves more than drafting high. Its a strategy that involves specifically accumulating assets and younger players to then use to build out ypur team. Most of Bennings moves outside of drafting high are not hallmarks of a rebuild but a year by year retool. A retool is when a team tries to patch what they already have with more veteran players. Its a more short term approach.

 

I dont decide what the parameters are. They are just clearly defined by history and what teams typically do in each of those scenarios.

[tas]

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

A rebuild or a retool are not really arbitrary buzzwords. They are two very different approaches and each has its own widely accepted approach that is clear and easy to define.

 

Rebuilding teams do not just draft high. Thats actually able to be a hallmark of a rebuild or a retool because it largely depends on actual results rather than a set strategy.

 

Not very many teans historically have purposely tanked their results to draft high. Nor should they. The teams that have typically dont have it work out as expected.

 

There is nothing wrong with either strategy really. They both work or dont work depending on many other factors.

 

But a rebuild involves more than drafting high. Its a strategy that involves specifically accumulating assets and younger players to then use to build out ypur team. Most of Bennings moves outside of drafting high are not hallmarks of a rebuild but a year by year retool. A retool is when a team tries to patch what they already have with more veteran players. Its a more short term approach.

 

I dont decide what the parameters are. They are just clearly defined by history and what teams typically do in each of those scenarios.

says you.

 

just because you and canucks army have decided what retool and rebuild mean, doesn't actually mean anything. both mean "change" and really nothing more. benning in his time has effectively turned over the entire organization ... call it whatever you want, that's a rebuild. it not fitting into your cute little video game category changes nothing.

 

benning has a variety of tools at his disposal for roster churn and he uses each of them when he deems necessary while performing a constant evaluation. 

[appleboy]

It won't be high end UFA's you know you know. We will look for players that bring something to the table and can move forward with our group. You know you know. we will look at everything you know you know. Buyouts, trades and ufa's you know you know.

 

WOW, I went back and listened to the interview.  

 

 

                            

 

 

WE ARE SO SCREWED.

[sonoman]

On 5/20/2021 at 5:17 PM, debluvscanucks said:

Hey, everyone is free to cheer for whomever.  I will never abandon my team....in my blood.  Couldn't do it.

Since 1970

[wallstreetamigo]

3 hours ago, tas said:

says you.

 

just because you and canucks army have decided what retool and rebuild mean, doesn't actually mean anything. both mean "change" and really nothing more. benning in his time has effectively turned over the entire organization ... call it whatever you want, that's a rebuild. it not fitting into your cute little video game category changes nothing.

 

benning has a variety of tools at his disposal for roster churn and he uses each of them when he deems necessary while performing a constant evaluation. 

Actually, the terms retool and rebuild are used consistently by analysts, hockey executives, media, etc. throughout the sports world. They are clearly understood to mean two very different strategic approaches to making changes to hopefully improve.

 

According to your definition, any minor change at all is a rebuild. Maybe in the literal sense of rebuilding one piece with a different piece, but not in the strategic context of how the terms are used in the sports world though. 

 

If you choose to call what Benning has done a rebuild, good for you. Very few people in the sports world would agree with you though. Bennings moves over the past 7 years have overwhelmingly been described as a retool, not a rebuild. An accidental draft high rebuild, sure. But not a rebuild strategy that was built around a true rebuild set of moves. Its just that his constant retools failed spectacularly so he got too draft high.

 

The tools are different for a rebuild vs a retool. Benning has almost overwhelmingly utilized retool ones though. And its failed a lot.

Edited May 23, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[Bertuzzipunch]

4 hours ago, Alflives said:

Clearly our record of picking in the top ten during the JB era indicates a rebuild.  Call it what you like, but it’s a time of rebuilding the core.  

You want us to rebuild the core?

[wallstreetamigo]

Rebuilding the core is good.

 

But its not the only thing that makes a championship quality team.

 

I like our core a lot but to be honest I dont see it as lights out top of the NHL quality yet.

 

The best cores almost always have a true, all around #1 dman who can impact a game in a positive way at both ends. The Canucks do not have that piece yet. Hughes is good offensively but his offensive play negatively impacts his defensive play. Hopefully he gets coached to use his skills at both ends of the ice. Or the Canucks get a true #1 RHD to play with him.

 

Horvat, Boeser, and EP are good top 6 core guys. Demko is a good goalie. Those pieces are fine for the core. Hoglander looks like he could be one too hopefully.

 

Our defense though is not quite at that level yet in terms of core players. 

 

There is still some work to be done there.

[tas]

16 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Actually, the terms retool and rebuild are used consistently by analysts, hockey executives, media, etc. throughout the sports world. They are clearly understood to mean two very different strategic approaches to making changes to hopefully improve.

 

According to your definition, any minor change at all is a rebuild. Maybe in the literal sense of rebuilding one piece with a different piece, but not in the strategic context of how the terms are used in the sports world though. 

 

If you choose to call what Benning has done a rebuild, good for you. Very few people in the sports world would agree with you though. Bennings moves over the past 7 years have overwhelmingly been described as a retool, not a rebuild. An accidental draft high rebuild, sure. But not a rebuild strategy that was built around a true rebuild set of moves. Its just that his constant retools failed spectacularly so he got too draft high.

 

The tools are different for a rebuild vs a retool. Benning has almost overwhelmingly utilized retool ones though. And its failed a lot.

the most ridiculous thing is that you think there are these two set in stone paths that rebuilding teams follow like it's a text based rpg in 1990. 

[Bertuzzipunch]

3 minutes ago, tas said:

the most ridiculous thing is that you think there are these two set in stone paths that rebuilding teams follow like it's a text based rpg in 1990. 

YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FIRST OVERALL PICK TO BE CONSIDERED TO GOING THRU A REBUILD OTHERWISE ITS JUST A RETOOL

[wildwood12]

3 hours ago, appleboy said:

It won't be high end UFA's you know you know. We will look for players that bring something to the table and can move forward with our group. You know you know. we will look at everything you know you know. Buyouts, trades and ufa's you know you know.

 

WOW, I went back and listened to the interview.  

 

 
           WE ARE SO SCREWED.

It’s Jim “You Know” Benning

[MeanSeanBean]

5 hours ago, Alflives said:

Clearly our record of picking in the top ten during the JB era indicates a rebuild.  Call it what you like, but it’s a time of rebuilding the core.  

The only difference between a retool and a rebuild is one team attempts to stay competitive, while the other doesn't. I for one am proud that the Canucks stuck to their guns and attempted to stay competitive and supply our future with a well rounded team. It may have had mixed results overall, but I'm still happy we did it this way.

[wallstreetamigo]

21 minutes ago, tas said:

the most ridiculous thing is that you think there are these two set in stone paths that rebuilding teams follow like it's a text based rpg in 1990. 

Not what I said at all really.

 

I said both paths are actually different approaches and have specific strategies around asset management that identify them pretty clearly.

 

Retooling teams and rebuilding teams do different things consistently.

 

Can a team be doing both? Of course, and in most cases it is some degree of both.

 

In the case of the Canucks, the vast majority of Bennings moves are typical retool strategies. Drafting high as a result of them not working as intended is to some degree rebuilding, but as a consequence of a failed retool, not a specific focus on rebuilding.

 

The only moves Benning has made that can be classified as rebuilding is drafting high. Everything else is retooling moves.

 

 

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, shayster007 said:

The only difference between a retool and a rebuild is one team attempts to stay competitive, while the other doesn't. I for one am proud that the Canucks stuck to their guns and attempted to stay competitive and supply our future with a well rounded team. It may have had mixed results overall, but I'm still happy we did it this way.

This isnt true. You can probably count only a handful of teams that have specifically tried to not be competitive in order to rebuild. Usually to draft 1st overall for a generational player.

 

Rebuilding doesnt mean you have to tank or purposely try to not be competitive. They are different things completely. Retooling is done where the short term is the focus. Ie. Make it to the playoffs next year. A rebuild is where the longer term is the focuses on building a competitive team over time and through different asset management strategies. The focus not being only on short term goals like making the playoffs does not equal trying to not be competitive.

 

Both can work or fail. 

[MeanSeanBean]

11 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

This isnt true. You can probably count only a handful of teams that have specifically tried to not be competitive in order to rebuild. Usually to draft 1st overall for a generational player.

 

Rebuilding doesnt mean you have to tank or purposely try to not be competitive. They are different things completely. Retooling is done where the short term is the focus. Ie. Make it to the playoffs next year. A rebuild is where the longer term is the focuses on building a competitive team over time and through different asset management strategies. The focus not being only on short term goals like making the playoffs does not equal trying to not be competitive.

 

Both can work or fail. 

I truly believe the short team goals lead to the long-term goals. I fully believe in what Benning is preaching, in theory. He wanted to give our kids all the recourses to simulate what a winning team looks like. Vets, kids, an entire team working together. I think it's a shame we haven't added more picks, and got value for our aging assets. I think that was a really missed opportunity by this management. But I still appreciate they brought those players in to teach our future core.

[Smashian Kassian]

17 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Until Benning proves he actually has learned his lesson I will still be nervous. 

 

Had he managed the cap better he could have probably gotten some nice pieces ahead of the expansion draft for cheap. Not sure how much opportunity he will get there now.

 

I would feel a lot better if he didnt wait until the last minute to sign Hughes and EP. I am willing to give him a chance to prove he has learned to restrain himself from overpaying middling UFA guys. But it would be nice if he didnt draw out the suspense on signing those two. The longer that goes on, the likelihood of a "we ran out of time" scenario materializes as those contracts will set the table for what else he can do.

 

I disagree that Hughes & EP have been left to the last minute, the offseason just started. Last minute would be training camp/start of the season, and I don't think it will get to that point.

 

These negotiations are also a 2-way street, just b/c it hasn't been done already doesn't mean its only the Canucks who weren't ready to begin the process - I'm sure the players wanted another year to potentially bolster their leverage. 

 

It nice that you will be open minded. I understand the criticisms completely, I was aboard the anti-Benning train early on and have hopped on/off at different times the last number of years. But I do think they've done some better work of late & am optimistic with the young players they've been able to bring in. 

 

Not to say they will hit home runs left & right, but I was more confident in Gillis in real time & alot of his post 2011 moves failed too.

 

Regardless its nice to hear the organization realizes the work that needs to be done, and we'll see how they do. They have an opportunity here.




 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Smashian Kassian

[wallstreetamigo]

6 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

I disagree that Hughes & EP have been left to the last minute, the offseason just started. Last minute would be training camp/start of the season, and I don't think it will get to that point. These negotiations are also a 2-way street, just b/c it hasn't been done already doesn't mean its only the Canucks who weren't ready to begin the process - I'm sure the players wanted another year to potentially bolster their leverage. 

 

It nice that you will be open minded. I understand the criticisms completely, I was aboard the anti-Benning train early on and have hopped on/off at different times the last number of years. But I do think they've done some better work of late & am optimistic with the young players they've been able to bring in. Not to say they will hit home runs left & right, but I was more confident in Gillis in real time & alot of his post 2011 moves failed too.

 

Regardless its nice to hear the organization realizes the work that needs to be done, and we'll see how they do. They have an opportunity here.




 

I might have worded it wrong.

 

I wasnt saying he already has waited too long on those 2 signings. I was saying I dont want to see him wait until the 11th hour this offseason.

 

I think he absolutely has waited too long on Clark though tbh.

[canuck73_3]

On 5/21/2021 at 6:56 PM, Alain Vigneault said:

Wasn't a huge fan of this press conference.

 

Same old story from Benning, except with a few lines he threw in there that were clearly fed to him by FA.

Weird that you’d pay attention as someone who already said is jumping ship. 

[AV.]

1 minute ago, canuck73_3 said:

Weird that you’d pay attention as someone who already said is jumping ship. 

I didn't.  I read Twitter, saw the tweets. 

 

I'm not privy to whatever you mean in the second part.  When did I ever say I was jumping ship lmfao?

[canuck73_3]

2 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I didn't.  I read Twitter, saw the tweets. 

 

I'm not privy to whatever you mean in the second part.  When did I ever say I was jumping ship lmfao?

You sure pay a lot of attention for someone not paying attention...