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

[Discussion] Do You Have the Stomach For a Rebuild?

Rate this topic


Warhippy

Would You Accept A Rebuild?  

208 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, RolexSub said:

Screw the rebuild process...weren't we in a rebuild process in the last 5-6yrs!!! I can't stand another 3-4year not making the playoffs..and that would be a total joke!!! 

 

I think we are missing a few pieces of the puzzle to be a good team and that will come from a combination of a few big trades and a few good young stars coming up from our draft picks. I would trade Myers, Poolman, Bo, Pearson, and Boeser for return on good assets. 

You would be very lucky to net out with any assets at all from that group of trade pieces.  Most of them would cost assets to move.   The only one with positive value is Bo.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd commit to a rebuild, I'd stick it out and be patient. I'd want them to take a patient approach to team building though, shortcuts don't usually seem to do this organization any favours. 

 

I'd be more than happy to build around the young core of Pettersson, Hughs, and Podz. Gotta extend Pettersson of course, but I believe he should be a big piece of things going forward if he's willing to stay. 

 

I've mixed feelings about Demko, he's a great tender and I'm a big fan but I don't know if he'd want to stick it out during a rebuild. Same goes for Bo. Maybe Bo extends but I could see him being tired of losing. If he wants to go I'd move him, I'd absolutely move Miller. I'd probably move Boeser. I'd be looking to move a lot of our big ticket pieces for assets or to free up cap space. I don't believe tinkering around the edges is enough. 

 

I do think some guys like Garland, Mikheyev, and OEL could have value throughout a rebuild as they're less costly and the term isn't as much. OEL should at least be serviceable up until his deal expires. I think there's a place on this team for vets going forward but if I were management I'd be looking to sign mostly short and medium term deals going forward to guys who aren't top flight core guys like Pettersson. But on some level I do think some of this team's core needs to be dismantled if we're to bring in assets that could be used to turn this ship around sooner than later, one of those assets being cap flexibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if we do embrace a rebuild, stick to it. If we're going to be bad, let's be bad. I'd rather management do what the Rangers did and set a firm direction. Obviously the Rangers got lucky with a bunch of top end pieces wanting to sign with them, but I liked how they communicated with the fanbase. 

 

I don't want to spin our wheels in a cycle of mediocrity forever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rebuilding properly is the only way out of this mess. I am all for it as long as there is a clear direction and stick with it. I would rather gradually build to a point where the Canucks can make the playoffs consistently every year and contend. It's pretty damning that all these years of half assery during the JB era and retooling has barely yielded a proper playoff appearance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Comeback_Kings said:

 A rebuild won't be easy, not enough teams with cap space.  

Would probably have to take cap back to move certain contracts, but if we can get a contract back that has less term on it there might be value there. I think it's doable, we'd just have to play ball to meet the needs of another team as well. 

 

Boeser's contract, for all the guff it sometimes gets, only has two years remaining on it after this season and he's still young enough that he could provide value. Moving Miller's contract, being seven years as of next season, could be trickier and would likely entail us taking some cap back in exchange. 

 

We're fortunate in that a lot of our deals aren't long term deals, the OEL, Hughes, and Miller deals being the longest.  

Edited by Coconuts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fanfor42 said:

The poll needs to say rebuild is: trade Hughes Petey and Demko. Retool is: trade several other players but not those three.

 

Then vote.

 

If you don't say that the poll is like asking what do you think of the wind?         ie. USELESS.

 

 

 

 

It kind of goes without saying that the young core is not what gets traded out in a youth movement rebuild. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EddieVedder said:

Hughes isnt a #1 dman

He could be. He’s broken how many franchise records already? Just needs the right side support. 
We’re incredibly fortunate to have him rather than some other Dman draft bust that could’ve been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Provost said:

 

To me the rebuild includes Petterson, Hughes, and Demko as they are what gives you the return you need to kickstart it.  They are also not going to be under club control indefinitely.

 

See, I keep Hughes, Podkolzin, Hoglander, Demko and Pettersson this year.  I whip Kuzmenko in to a frenzy for max return at the tdl.

 

I only remove the rest over the next 2-3 years for absolute max returns after I've drafted a potential replacement or traded for one.

 

But yes, even they would be expendable over the next 3 years if the offer was right in my eyes

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are in a very similar situation that Colorado was in during the 2016-2017 season.  They had their #1 centre in MacKinnon, had a #2 centre in Duchene, had some good wingers in Landeskog and Rantanen, had a couple guys on defence in Johnson and a PMD in Barrie, and had some good young players in Jost, Zadorov and Compher.  

 

They finished last that year and even though they lost the lottery they were still able to draft the best player in the 2017 draft, a franchise defenceman in Makar.  They also traded their #2 centre Duchene and obtained Girard and a 2019 #1 round pick which turned out to be Byram.  So that trade plus the tanking in 2016-2017 allowed them to completely rebuild their defence.

 

With Vancouver today, we have Petey, Hughes, Demko, Podkolzin, Hoglander, Rathbone, Kuzmenko and a bunch of young prospects that we were able to obtain over the last 2 years.  What we need to do is get our "Makar" type player as well as trade some veterans for youth.  If we can tank just this one year, then we will be able to get a similar player to Makar in Bedard.  And if we can trade our #2 centre, Horvat, for youth, then we will be well on our way to having a team similar to Colorado.

 

We can also look at trading guy like Myers, Pearson, Garland and Boeser.  Miller and OEL would be difficult to move so they most likely stay and become the veterans of the team once the rebuild is complete.

 

So in essence this wouldn't be a hard rebuild as we already have some core pieces in place, but more of a soft rebuild.  Of course, just like Colorado, we would need to get lucky and get Bedard just like they got Makar.  So our soft rebuild really hinges on getting that #1 overall pick in 2023.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said:

We are in a very similar situation that Colorado was in during the 2016-2017 season.  They had their #1 centre in MacKinnon, had a #2 centre in Duchene, had some good wingers in Landeskog and Rantanen, had a couple guys on defence in Johnson and a PMD in Barrie, and had some good young players in Jost, Zadorov and Compher.  

 

They finished last that year and even though they lost the lottery they were still able to draft the best player in the 2017 draft, a franchise defenceman in Makar.  They also traded their #2 centre Duchene and obtained Girard and a 2019 #1 round pick which turned out to be Byram.  So that trade plus the tanking in 2016-2017 allowed them to completely rebuild their defence.

 

With Vancouver today, we have Petey, Hughes, Demko, Podkolzin, Hoglander, Rathbone, Kuzmenko and a bunch of young prospects that we were able to obtain over the last 2 years.  What we need to do is get our "Makar" type player as well as trade some veterans for youth.  If we can tank just this one year, then we will be able to get a similar player to Makar in Bedard.  And if we can trade our #2 centre, Horvat, for youth, then we will be well on our way to having a team similar to Colorado.

 

We can also look at trading guy like Myers, Pearson, Garland and Boeser.  Miller and OEL would be difficult to move so they most likely stay and become the veterans of the team once the rebuild is complete.

 

So in essence this wouldn't be a hard rebuild as we already have some core pieces in place, but more of a soft rebuild.  Of course, just like Colorado, we would need to get lucky and get Bedard just like they got Makar.  So our soft rebuild really hinges on getting that #1 overall pick in 2023.

How effective was Makar before getting Toews?  Hughes is our Makar, but we need a Toews for his partner.  Sadly we had that guy in Tanev, but Benning did his thing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Provost said:

I don’t know if I will keep following that much if they DON’T rebuild.  I already have started PVRing games and fast forwarding through parts.

 

The big picture is bleak… as it was two years ago.  All of our efficient contracts were up for extension meaning all the money coming off the books was already eaten up by raised we would owe.  That is the same for the next few years, there is no big help coming in free agency and no high end prospects coming In the pipeline.  Due to cap and contracts signed…this is the roster we will have for the next 3-4 years give or take a couple players.  If it isn’t a winner, then why keep trotting it out.

 

To me the rebuild includes Petterson, Hughes, and Demko as they are what gives you the return you need to kickstart it.  They are also not going to be under club control indefinitely.

 

If we had have made moves last trade deadline we could have been looking at 2 years to being competitive with a few extra high end prospects in the system to sustain a window with a steady stream of ELCs.  Now we are looking at 4 years I think.  A couple years of tearing down and a couple years of building up.

 

There are a lot of decent veterans looking for work nowadays that we can keep finding cheap one year UFAs that we can flip for more picks each deadline so that the prospects don’t have to be thrown to the wolves.  Build a champion Abbotsford team of guys that learn to win together… then they graduate as a group over 2-3 years.  A lot of the team building for our last good core came from the Moose.

 

Look at Montreal, they aren’t going to be winning a Cup this year but the fans are falling in love with the players as they see it as being on the way up.

Firstly, no one is ever under team control indefinitely...the player and their agent will always extract exactly what is best for the player, rarely for the club. If that's a win-win scenario then you sign. 

Secondly on that same note, players on ELC's are only under club control for 3 years. Once they are an RFA (and are of qualifying age) they are free to accept a contract offer from anyone (see Aho & Kotkaniemi as examples).

Thirdly, you cannot trade away all of your players with salary to attain picks (ultimately players) who will be on ELC's...you will end up signing poor contracts to make the Cap Floor and fill out your roster (guys like Roussel, Beagle, Schaller and - blech - Eriksson). Better to keep the higher end players...you need a solid core to build around.

And finally, if you go all in on moving out the tradeable pieces to bring in picked players, they'll all want to get paid at the same time...you'd just end up with a bullet hole in your foot when you have to let some of them go and never get the chemistry from a solid core.

 

If you look at most teams that go deep into the playoffs, they have a solid core of about 10 players and add peripheral players on short term deals. They almost always have a secret weapon player as well...that guy still on an ELC taking up a top 6F / top 4D role that frees up cash to attain quality depth players.

If you look at teams that will perpetually have playoff success (RD 2 and beyond for multiple years) they are able to stagger the incoming quality ELC's so that they don't all want to get paid at once.

 

To me, this is a better cycle to get on than perpetually trading away your best young players and be stuck in rebuild purgatory for a decade or more (see Buffalo, Ottawa, Detroit...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alflives said:

How effective was Makar before getting Toews?  Hughes is our Makar, but we need a Toews for his partner.  Sadly we had that guy in Tanev, but Benning did his thing. 

Not as effective as before Toews arrived.  Along with trying to blow hard for Bedard, we would need to get a true partner for Hughes.  So, our soft rebuild would basically consist of getting Bedard and a partner for Hughes plus moving out veterans for youth and cap space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've hung in there with the Canucks for so many years now.  Seen some great hockey, but a lot more

downright awful hockey over the years.

 

I think I will probably take some time off from watching this team.  It hurts to see my guys being ridiculed

by their fans and frankly, I'm tired of watching the various managements and coaches retreading the same

old story, over and over again. 

 

A rebuild is probably what's in order, but it will take some time and a lot more of loserville hockey.  It will

be tough to see some of my favourite players traded; especially for prospects and picks, who I know

little of or nothing about. 

 

To be honest, I don't really have much faith in the new management doing and effective rebuild.

 

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Provost said:

You would be very lucky to net out with any assets at all from that group of trade pieces.  Most of them would cost assets to move.   The only one with positive value is Bo.

Meyers, Pearson and Brock have (positive) value as well. Whether or not it’s enough to justify moving them…. 

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...