Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Respect to the Sedins (2011)

Rate this topic


LTC123

Recommended Posts

I've read that a reason why the Canucks didn't go full rebuild after the 2011 SCF loss was that it would not have been fair for Dan and Hank.  The organization truly wanted to give them a chance at another kick at the can.  Is this fair and acceptable practice in the NHL?  Is this valid?  Is this a reason why we're here now?  Instead of going full rebuild and getting a bunch of top 5 picks, we now have just a few top 5 picks and a bunch of late-rounders?   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, LTC123 said:

I've read that a reason why the Canucks didn't go full rebuild after the 2011 SCF loss was that it would not have been fair for Dan and Hank.  The organization truly wanted to give them a chance at another kick at the can.  Is this fair and acceptable practice in the NHL?  Is this valid?  Is this a reason why we're here now?  Instead of going full rebuild and getting a bunch of top 5 picks, we now have just a few top 5 picks and a bunch of late-rounders?   

 

 

It’s not just about that. It’s also that the Canucks feared how fans would react to an actual rebuild and feared losing playoff revenue. Ironically had they bit the bullet and not put getting the Sedins another shot ahead of what was obviously necessary they would likely already be a playoff contender again.

 

There has been 8 years of one year reactionary plans hoping to make the playoffs each year. There has not been an actual long term goal of creating a sustainable competitive team through incremental improvement.

 

The Canucks need the owners to step back from pushing unrealistic expectations and it needs a GM with the ability to plan rather than “live day to day” as Benning likes to say he does.

Edited by wallstreetamigo
  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

It’s not just about that. It’s also that the Canucks feared how fans would react to an actual rebuild and feared losing playoff revenue. Ironically had they bit the bullet and not put getting the Sedins another shot ahead of what was obviously necessary they would likely already be a playoff contender again.

 

There has been 8 years of one year reactionary plans hoping to make the playoffs each year. There has not been an actual long term goal of creating a sustainable competitive team through incremental improvement.

 

The Canucks need the owners to step back from pushing unrealistic expectations and it needs a GM with the ability to plan rather than “live day to day” as Benning likes to say he does.

I always thought giving Sedins another shot was an excuse to mask the owner's true intentions.

 

The owner wants playoff revenue. He obviously wants to win a but his intentions are not as pure as the fans. Winning the cup means maximum playoff revenue.

 

I think doing a quick retool after bouncing out in 2012 would have been good, even for the Sedins. Ship out some players, get additional draft picks to add to the team from 2012 to 2015. And by 2016, maybe we would have enough good young players to take over from the Sedins and even help them win a cup. Maybe the Sedins would have stayed on a bit longer at 1 mil salaries like Joe Thornton if they could see that the team could contend. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, khay said:

I always thought giving Sedins another shot was an excuse to mask the owner's true intentions.

 

The owner wants playoff revenue. He obviously wants to win a but his intentions are not as pure as the fans. Winning the cup means maximum playoff revenue.

 

I think doing a quick retool after bouncing out in 2012 would have been good, even for the Sedins. Ship out some players, get additional draft picks to add to the team from 2012 to 2015. And by 2016, maybe we would have enough good young players to take over from the Sedins and even help them win a cup. Maybe the Sedins would have stayed on a bit longer at 1 mil salaries like Joe Thornton if they could see that the team could contend. 

 

You'll never get me to believe that the Sedins would not be the type of people who would do what's best for the team and had management approached them about a rebuild they would 100% be on board with doing everything they can to help develop the next generation of players. Especially when teams with Toews/Kane, Doughty/Quick/Brown are doing rebuilds with their bigger cap hits.

 

They are being used as shields to explain why the owner didn't want to rebuild. And the Sedins are the type of leaders to take responsibility, whether it is theirs to take or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, khay said:

I always thought giving Sedins another shot was an excuse to mask the owner's true intentions.

 

The owner wants playoff revenue. He obviously wants to win a but his intentions are not as pure as the fans. Winning the cup means maximum playoff revenue.

 

I think doing a quick retool after bouncing out in 2012 would have been good, even for the Sedins. Ship out some players, get additional draft picks to add to the team from 2012 to 2015. And by 2016, maybe we would have enough good young players to take over from the Sedins and even help them win a cup. Maybe the Sedins would have stayed on a bit longer at 1 mil salaries like Joe Thornton if they could see that the team could contend. 

 

The only way this team was winning a cup with the Sedins is if they took low contracts and as older players because they were the second line behind a better and younger top line. 
 

They should have done a partial rebuild after 2012. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DSVII said:

You'll never get me to believe that the Sedins would not be the type of people who would do what's best for the team and had management approached them about a rebuild they would 100% be on board with doing everything they can to help develop the next generation of players. Especially when teams with Toews/Kane, Doughty/Quick/Brown are doing rebuilds with their bigger cap hits.

 

They are being used as shields to explain why the owner didn't want to rebuild. And the Sedins are the type of leaders to take responsibility, whether it is theirs to take or not. 

I don’t know. Listening to what they said through those years gives me a different impression of them tbh. I think it’s mostly the owner but I think the Sedins were part of the problem too. They never seemed willing to take a backseat right until the end. I love the Sedins but they were as delusional as anyone about the veterans of the team needing to be the main guys.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, LTC123 said:

I've read that a reason why the Canucks didn't go full rebuild after the 2011 SCF loss was that it would not have been fair for Dan and Hank.  The organization truly wanted to give them a chance at another kick at the can.  Is this fair and acceptable practice in the NHL?  Is this valid?  Is this a reason why we're here now?  Instead of going full rebuild and getting a bunch of top 5 picks, we now have just a few top 5 picks and a bunch of late-rounders?   

 

 

The reason for not doing a full rebuild is that the Sedins managed to raise the Canuck brand so much the owner/GM feared to mess it up.

The value of the Canucks raised from 192 million dollar 2006 to 800 million dollar 2015.

 

I can be wrong because it can mostly be because higher income from viewing rights or something else.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LTC123 said:

I've read that a reason why the Canucks didn't go full rebuild after the 2011 SCF loss was that it would not have been fair for Dan and Hank.  The organization truly wanted to give them a chance at another kick at the can.  Is this fair and acceptable practice in the NHL?  Is this valid?  Is this a reason why we're here now?  Instead of going full rebuild and getting a bunch of top 5 picks, we now have just a few top 5 picks and a bunch of late-rounders?   

 

 

Going full rebuild after the 2011 SCF loss would have been sheer insanity.


We were the best team in the NHL.

 

Going full rebuild in 2014? 
 

In hindsight, that was probably the time to do it.

 

Unfortunately, the only guy who wanted to rebuild in 2014 was Mike Gillis and he got fired.

 

Then came Linden and Benning.

 

And a plan that was anything but a rebuild.

 

Then Linden finally decided he wanted to rebuild in 2017.

 

So he got forced out.

 

And back to a plan that was anything but a rebuild.

 

And now we’re here.

 

At least during Linden’s non-rebuild, when we were “handcuffed” by the Sedins, we drafted 28 times over four years, including 5 first rounders.

 

After Linden was gone, and it was the full-on Jim Benning show, with the Sedins retired, we drafted 26 times in four years, with only two first round picks.

Edited by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME
  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Going full rebuild after the 2011 SCF loss would have been sheer insanity.


We were the best team in the NHL.

 

Going full rebuild in 2014? 
 

In hindsight, that was probably the time to do it.

 

Unfortunately, the only guy who wanted to rebuild in 2014 was Mike Gillis and he got fired.

 

Then came Linden and Benning.

 

And a plan that was anything but a rebuild.

 

Then Linden finally decided he wanted to rebuild in 2017.

 

So he got forced out.

 

And back to a plan that was anything but a rebuild.

 

And now we’re here.

 

At least during Linden’s non-rebuild, when we were “handcuffed” by the Sedins, we drafted 28 times over four years, including 5 first rounders.

 

After Linden was gone, and it was the full-on Jim Benning show, with the Sedins retired, we drafted 26 times in four years, with only two first round picks.

Is anyone else kind of terrified that Benning will trade this years first for an over the hill veteran then we will finally win the draft lottery?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Is anyone else kind of terrified that Benning will trade this years first for an over the hill veteran then we will finally win the draft lottery?

Yes, get rid of all of our toughness and 1st round picks.  Good plan Jim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Is anyone else kind of terrified that Benning will trade this years first for an over the hill veteran then we will finally win the draft lottery?

It’s definitely a concern. We’re already kinda ****** but losing another first rounder, and further weakening our future prospect pool, would really not be good for the longterm health of this team.

 

Scary thought: when Benning eventually goes, he may leave the cupboards even emptier for the next guy than Gillis did. :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Scary thought: when Benning eventually goes, he may leave the cupboards even emptier for the next guy than Gillis did. :( 

This crossed my mind as well. Jim's going to get desperate to try and give this team a jolt.  I'm also concerned he's gong to end up trading some good players and prospects, notably Klimovich, Lockwood and Rathbone, and our 1st rounder in 2022, to try and win now. 

 

Be a lot more productive to fire Benning, and hire a new guy to sort it out before Jim makes it worse.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LTC123 said:

I've read that a reason why the Canucks didn't go full rebuild after the 2011 SCF loss was that it would not have been fair for Dan and Hank.  The organization truly wanted to give them a chance at another kick at the can.  Is this fair and acceptable practice in the NHL?  Is this valid?  Is this a reason why we're here now?  Instead of going full rebuild and getting a bunch of top 5 picks, we now have just a few top 5 picks and a bunch of late-rounders?   

 

 

They won the president's trophy and made the SCF in 2011, why on earth would they go full rebuild?

 

2012 they were 1st in the western conference, then a bad playoff showing.  Still no reason to go full rebuild.

 

2013 they led their division, and 3rd in the western conference, bad playoff showing.  Still no reason to go full rebuild.

 

2014 is where they really had their decline.  Down to 12th in the western conference.  If you want to wonder why we didn't start the rebuild after this year I get it.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LTC123 said:

I've read that a reason why the Canucks didn't go full rebuild after the 2011 SCF loss was that it would not have been fair for Dan and Hank.  The organization truly wanted to give them a chance at another kick at the can.  Is this fair and acceptable practice in the NHL?  Is this valid?  Is this a reason why we're here now?  Instead of going full rebuild and getting a bunch of top 5 picks, we now have just a few top 5 picks and a bunch of late-rounders?   

 

 

I personally don't think putting individual players above the needs of the organization is the best way to go.

Edited by dougieL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...