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

2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

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.

His name is David Jiricek...but no deal was made so we could draft and develop him...so here we are, no high end right D prospect to pair with Hughes for the next 10 years...instead we get a declining JT Miller for 7 years. OOPS! And nobody better say that it was better to keep Miller than take a chance on a 6'3" 210lb RHD with a monster shot. I'd rather suck for 2-3 years waiting on Jiricek to become a top pairing guy for Hughes than suck for 7 years being a crappy perpetual "middle of the NHL standings, lousy middle draft pick" team.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RWJC said:

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.

A #1 one dman can log minutes and play in every situation.   Most important, they can defend.   Ie hedman, doughty, pietrangelo, makar, Theodore,  ekblad etc

Hughes can put up all the points he wants,  but until we find a true #1 dman we are never going to be a contender.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EddieVedder said:

A #1 one dman can log minutes and play in every situation.   Most important, they can defend.   Ie hedman, doughty, pietrangelo, makar, Theodore,  ekblad etc

Hughes can put up all the points he wants,  but until we find a true #1 dman we are never going to be a contender.

Let’s put it this way. He’s as close to being a #1 Dman to this franchise as can be, with what they lack. He’s also quite young, give him time. Elite Dmen take a bit of time to develop into it. Some are anomalies, like Makar - arguably the McDavid of modern day D.

 

If we can obtain or quickly develop a young RHD with speed and size with the characteristics of Mikhail Sergechev to compliment Hughes, our top line D could be set for a decade and would be elite level. Elite.

 

Give it time. I think when he finally settles into his game, which just takes experience and maturity, and balances out into a defensively responsible offensive threat, he will be silky smooth in how he operates and a real treat to watch. Like Erik Karlsson-Esque in his prime. 
 

but I’m admittedly a Huggy Homer. 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ABNuck said:

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...)

None of those things are true.  Players are under club control as RFAs, you get compensation if they sign elsewhere.  That isn’t the case with our guys who will be UFAs at the end of their current contracts or within a short period where they can just accept an arb award.

 

No one said you trade away all your players with salary, you made that up.  You trade away anyone you can that won’t cost you futures to move.  It is hard to be under the floor… but if you are you can gain more assets by taking on contracts from other teams.  You can take on LTIR from other teams.  How do you not know that?  It doesn’t mean you have to sign overpaid veterans to long term contracts to make the cap floor.

 

ELCs and cheap contracts would naturally be staggered over several years.  2-4 years of extra picks and guys mature at different rates, some good to college, some spend a couple years in Europe, some right into the NHL, some need time in the AHL.  As the earliest ELCs come up for extensions, you will have those leftover expensive veterans coming off their contracts.  Not all players are going to be stars right off their ELCs.  Gathering as many as a dozen picks a year means that even if you draft amazingly you will get 3-4 NHL players per draft.  Over 4 years of a rebuild that is 12-16 players who will mature into the league over about 7 years (2-3 per graduating per year).  

 

In the unlikely event you are lucky enough to end up with TOO many blue chip young players all deserving raises… then that is a wonderful problem because those are valuable chips to trade for more futures to keep your window open for longer.

 

Teams thar perpetually have success are ones with a deep enough team that they can afford to trade away high picks to keep windows open.  They don’t purposefully stagger ELCs.

 

 

Edited by Provost
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

you never really can miss an opportunity for a tear down tho. The best talent will still come from your own 1sts, and everything else is secondary to that. 

Well, Jimmy, yes and no.

 

For example.....................

 

If you trade Pettersson, do you trade him strictly for picks of the future or do you take young assets, or a combination of both?

 

Example.........Pettersson for Sillinger, Jiricek,  because once Columbus gets Pettersson, they become much more competitive, and the first becomes later and less valuable. Therefore, making your own pick better, as you suggest.

 

Sillinger is 19 years old, and Jiricek is 18 years old, both well within a rebuild time frame. This also works as it drives down your competitive edge, therefore winning less.

 

Where the opposite might be true is a trade such like this...........................

 

Quinn Hughes to Arizona for 2023-1st, and Guenther who is 19 years old, because, Arizona has already purged themselves of all their talent, so it is questionable whether the addition of Hughes would change their actual draft position much, if at all. 

 

Again, I acknowledge you are trading your 2 best young players, but you gain 4 very good and 15 million in Cap. The Cap can then be used to first buy short term bad contracts, and secondly, once the rebuild is done, to add veterans who can supplement.

 

As you know Jimmy, I have always looked at trades this way, and this is only examples for illustration purposes only!

 

 

 

 

Edited by J.I.A.H.N
  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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. 

They have been, but rebuilds take a decade or so and the Canucks are on that general timeline and the emerging core of young guys is the result of that.  It certainly hasn't been a smooth ride, but there's a good team under there.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer from everybody on this forum is, and will be, a resounding yes.  In fact, this team could lose 10-0, have zero SOGs, and some of the homers on this forum would probably say "Well, the DJ was on his game, that's a positive". 

Truth is, this fanbase has shown that it has some of the most loyal individuals in all of sports.  Delusional af at (or most) of the time, but loyal to a fault, nevertheless.  To stick by this team, that's only given them just 3 finals appearances in 50 years, is something this Canucks organization should be infinitely more appreciative of than what they've shown towards their fans.  Not just in terms of the teams they've iced, but in how they've communicated to them and how they have treated them as consumers.

All it takes is somebody at the top, ideally ownership, to say "We're going to tear things down and start again", and I promise you, the faith on this board would be restored.  We'd be looking forward to the drafts with a real sense of purpose of what's to come.  People would take the losing in much better stride because they'd understand the team would be working towards a more structured and planned future instead of some on-the-fly, hope-for-the-best product.

I've never been to BC in my life.  Yet, here I am, still "supporting" despite the absolute trash I've had to watch for almost a decade.  If the out-of-market fans like myself can stick around, who's to say the local fans can't and won't be around?

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

The Canucks should be selling off ALL the expensive vets. Get young guys, picks, cap space, some warm bodies and build around Pettersson, Hughes etc.

 

I don't care about the "optics" of moving Miller before his clause/extension kicks in.

Edited by aGENT
  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Provost said:

None of those things are true.  Players are under club control as RFAs, you get compensation if they sign elsewhere.  That isn’t the case with our guys who will be UFAs at the end of their current contracts or within a short period where they can just accept an arb award.

 

No one said you trade away all your players with salary, you made that up.  You trade away anyone you can that won’t cost you futures to move.  It is hard to be under the floor… but if you are you can gain more assets by taking on contracts from other teams.  You can take on LTIR from other teams.  How do you not know that?  It doesn’t mean you have to sign overpaid veterans to long term contracts to make the cap floor.

 

ELCs and cheap contracts would naturally be staggered over several years.  2-4 years of extra picks and guys mature at different rates, some good to college, some spend a couple years in Europe, some right into the NHL, some need time in the AHL.  As the earliest ELCs come up for extensions, you will have those leftover expensive veterans coming off their contracts.  Not all players are going to be stars right off their ELCs.  Gathering as many as a dozen picks a year means that even if you draft amazingly you will get 3-4 NHL players per draft.  Over 4 years of a rebuild that is 12-16 players who will mature into the league over about 7 years (2-3 per graduating per year).  

 

In the unlikely event you are lucky enough to end up with TOO many blue chip young players all deserving raises… then that is a wonderful problem because those are valuable chips to trade for more futures to keep your window open for longer.

 

Teams thar perpetually have success are ones with a deep enough team that they can afford to trade away high picks to keep windows open.  They don’t purposefully stagger ELCs.

 

 

Are you one of those guys that likes to speak in extremes? My first point is 100% accurate my friend. No player is under club control indefinitely. If they sign an offer from another club then who's in control? You either match or get compensated, but make no mistake about it, you're not in control. You cannot keep the player from signing the offer (the player controls that), you cannot control which team gives the player the offer or for how much, and you do not control the compensation you receive (the NHL/NHLPA CBA controls that)...so explain exactly what it is that you are in control of?

 

As for the players you are trading away...you mentioned almost all of our young core players now that make up about 22% of our active roster cap...and you want to replace them with ELC's, LTIR and bad contracts? Sounds more like the Arizona rebuild plan.

 

Of course you would hope that the development plan would stagger the ELC expiries...but if it doesn't then your idea is to just trade those blue chip prospects away and start again with more (hopefully) high picks? I'm guessing you play the lottery a lot. In your mind, when does the rebuild become complete and you're ready to compete? This plan sounds more like a revolving door of draft picks and hopefuls.

 

And teams that have success are built on talent and chemistry, whether they trade away their picks or not, sooner or later it boils down to talent and chemistry. How long have Stamkos, Kucherov, Point, Hedman, Vasilevskiy etc played together? How about MacKinnon, Rantanen, Landeskog, Makar, Girard etc?

 

You must assemble your core and add complimentary pieces around that core, but make no mistake about it, the core is what will get the job done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ABNuck said:

Are you one of those guys that likes to speak in extremes? My first point is 100% accurate my friend. No player is under club control indefinitely. If they sign an offer from another club then who's in control? You either match or get compensated, but make no mistake about it, you're not in control. You cannot keep the player from signing the offer (the player controls that), you cannot control which team gives the player the offer or for how much, and you do not control the compensation you receive (the NHL/NHLPA CBA controls that)...so explain exactly what it is that you are in control of?

 

You don’t even understand what club control is…

 

With your random jumble of words “logic” no players is ever under club control.  They can choose not to sign with the club that drafted them, they can choose to sit out even with a signed contract, they can go play in another league that doesn’t have an agreement with the NHL, they can go work at Burger King and not play hockey at all…

 

Until a player reaches UFA, they are considered under club control.

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...