If Bo goes then get rid of Rutherford!

[alt kilgore]

On 12/16/2022 at 1:38 PM, Baggins said:

I don't think an intentional tank is needed to rebuild. And intententional tanking doesn't guarantee success. Putting the best team you can on the ice doesn't guartantee playoffs. Benning tried and and finished bottom five three years in a row. That's doing your best and letting the chips fall where they may. To me that's the way to rebuild. Honestly, why would I spend my hard earned money on tickets for a team that was set up to lose in the offseason hoping to be last in the league? That will never get my support.

 

I think we have some of our signals crossed. I agree with you that an intentional tank is not needed every time.  In the sense of how Boston and LA are going about it and Detroit in the past. Great drafting helps.  But sometimes a complete strip down is what's best, or the only real option.  You must agree that its not black and white. A lot of grey area in between the two. Every team has their own unique circumstances.

 

But again that word "tanking".  What is your interpretation of "intentional tanking"?  I don't think that phrase makes much sense.  Its an oxymoron. No team tanks intentionally. They rebuild intentionally, and the fall out will most likely result in a drop in the standings, or "tanking".  But once a GM and owner commit to a rebuild, the quicker the new younger team gets rolling the better. The plan is to rebuild, and stock the farm. The plan is never to intentionally do badly, even in the season after the purge.

 

A team tanks (unintentionally), in the standings:

a. when they are not very good (and probably need a rebuild)

b. through some terrible injury luck

c. because they decided to rebuild, sold off their vets, and loaded up on kids.

 

And just to be clear, for the Canucks at present, IMO its the wrong time for a major rebuild. The team waited way too long, and blew many opportunities during Bennings tenure. ( 2014 - 16 was when a major intentional rebuild (tank) actually was the right thing to do) But now they are a glass half full, or just over half.  If JR can pull some magic and somehow revamp and vastly upgrade our D with a Horvat trade, and perhaps Boeser too, then I'd run with that.  If we can keep Kuzmenko and Mik, and an improving Hogs and Podz, we will still have enough scoring up front to get by.

 

We could have rebuilt properly, intentionally, back in 2014 or so. And maybe had a contending team plus a stocked farm of good prospects by now.  But we didn't. But now that we have star players entering their prime, and signed a good scorer and leader in Miller for years, and with a #1 goaltender (I'm sure he'll bounce back) we might as well try and fill that cup all the way to the top. Its not ideal, as we have no futures to speak of after this, but IMO there is too much pain and uncertainty and risk if we give up on this core at present. All the ducks are not lined up in a row, but enough of them are that we are in the "might as well" phase.

 

"You can't always get what you want

But if you try sometimes

You get what you need"

 

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by kilgore

[Baggins]

15 minutes ago, kilgore said:

 

I think we have some of our signals crossed. I agree with you that an intentional tank is not needed every time.  In the sense of how Boston and LA are going about it and Detroit in the past. Great drafting helps.  But sometimes a complete strip down is what's best, or the only real option.  You must agree that its not black and white. A lot of grey area in between the two. Every team has their own unique circumstances.

 

But again that word "tanking".  What is your interpretation of "intentional tanking"?  I don't think that phrase makes much sense.  Its an oxymoron. No team tanks intentionally. They rebuild intentionally, and the fall out will most likely result in a drop in the standings, or "tanking".  But once a GM and owner commit to a rebuild, the quicker the new younger team gets rolling the better. The plan is to rebuild, and stock the farm. The plan is never to intentionally do badly, even in the season after the purge.

 

A team tanks (unintentionally), in the standings:

a. when they are not very good (and probably need a rebuild)

b. through some terrible injury luck

c. because they decided to rebuild, sold off their vets, and loaded up on kids.

 

And just to be clear, for the Canucks at present, IMO its the wrong time for a major rebuild. The team waited way too long, and blew many opportunities during Bennings tenure. ( 2014 - 16 was when a major intentional rebuild (tank) actually was the right thing to do) But now they are a glass half full, or just over half.  If JR can pull some magic and somehow revamp and vastly upgrade our D with a Horvat trade, and perhaps Boeser too, then I'd run with that.  If we can keep Kuzmenko and Mik, and an improving Hogs and Podz, we will still have enough scoring up front to get by.

 

We could have rebuilt properly, intentionally, back in 2014 or so. And maybe had a contending team plus a stocked farm of good prospects by now.  But we didn't. But now that we have star players entering their prime, and signed a good scorer and leader in Miller for years, and with a #1 goaltender (I'm sure he'll bounce back) we might as well try and fill that cup all the way to the top. Its not ideal, as we have no futures to speak of after this, but IMO there is too much pain and uncertainty and risk if we give up on this core at present. All the ducks are not lined up in a row, but enough of them are that we are in the "might as well" phase.

 

"You can't always get what you want

But if you try sometimes

You get what you need"

I strenuously disagree with that bold party. When Benning took over there was one player on the team under 27 worth keeping (Tanev) and no prospects on the farm worth a damn. The entire team needed replacing. Tanking hoping for a top 3 pick at that time would have simply wasted many years of those young talented players while rebuilding an entire team. Picks outside top 20 and later rounds are typically years away from the NHL. Even then your crossing your fingers. I think Benning went about it right in the beginning. Adding young players via trade while icing a decent team. I think where he went wrong was going after higher end UFA's later on. I suspect that's where Benning and Linden disagreed. He should have just let the chips fall where they may at that point. Sure it's nice to get those top 3 picks. But they never win without a good team around them. You want those guys to come at the end of rebuilding to maximize their impact, not the beginning wasting years while drafting and developing players to build around them. Chicago had a nice long window because they were mediocre for several years and had a lot in place when Toews and Kane were drafted. Those two came at the end of the rebuild rather than the beginning maximizing their effect. 

[RU SERIOUS]

On 12/13/2022 at 5:14 PM, Bell said:

If they get rid of Bo they can bring in more high paid management types who obviously win games for you.

...maybe more "Chipmunk Girls" to give Alvin more companionship.  and to blame when his trades go sideways (Like The 2nd for Still-Man)

[Fred65]

As I recall Bennings first move was drafting Virtanen and McCann and he followed up the next season with Boeser and Juolevi. Enough said

[73 Percent]

2 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

As I recall Bennings first move was drafting Virtanen and McCann and he followed up the next season with Boeser and Juolevi. Enough said

Boeser is a good pick. People get confused because he looked like a future rocket contender. He obviously didn't turn out like that, but at 23rd overall I don't think you can ask for much more. 

Edited December 18, 2022 by 73 Percent

[Fred65]

18 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

Boeser is a good pick. People get confused because he looked like a future rocket contender. He obviously didn't turn out like that, but at 23rd overall I don't think you can ask for much more. 

I know it's hard to imagine but after the first couple of seasons Boeser revealed what he was, a 1 trick pony. It was a good try at the 23 rd O/A but the failure was to see the true player and trade him ASAP.

[ToTellTheTruth]

2 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

Boeser is a good pick. People get confused because he looked like a future rocket contender. He obviously didn't turn out like that, but at 23rd overall I don't think you can ask for much more. 

I wish some of the really old posts were around, I always posted he relied on his team mates to score and that he wasn't that much better or different than Dane Fox for his release and need for others to help him score. But he had a much "cleaner" reputation than Fox.

 

At 23rd that was where he was ranked so not much of chance taken and he did do much better than a lot of others taken before him at first. He has had at least three or more injuries to his wrist or hand, a couple requiring surgery so that could be a long term concern.

 

So much talk about how hard it is to make a trade, only if the teams want to win every trade made.

22 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

I think we have some of our signals crossed. I agree with you that an intentional tank is not needed every time.  In the sense of how Boston and LA are going about it and Detroit in the past. Great drafting helps.  But sometimes a complete strip down is what's best, or the only real option.  You must agree that its not black and white. A lot of grey area in between the two. Every team has their own unique circumstances.

 

But again that word "tanking".  What is your interpretation of "intentional tanking"?  I don't think that phrase makes much sense.  Its an oxymoron. No team tanks intentionally. They rebuild intentionally, and the fall out will most likely result in a drop in the standings, or "tanking".  But once a GM and owner commit to a rebuild, the quicker the new younger team gets rolling the better. The plan is to rebuild, and stock the farm. The plan is never to intentionally do badly, even in the season after the purge.

 

A team tanks (unintentionally), in the standings:

a. when they are not very good (and probably need a rebuild)

b. through some terrible injury luck

c. because they decided to rebuild, sold off their vets, and loaded up on kids.

 

And just to be clear, for the Canucks at present, IMO its the wrong time for a major rebuild. The team waited way too long, and blew many opportunities during Bennings tenure. ( 2014 - 16 was when a major intentional rebuild (tank) actually was the right thing to do) But now they are a glass half full, or just over half.  If JR can pull some magic and somehow revamp and vastly upgrade our D with a Horvat trade, and perhaps Boeser too, then I'd run with that.  If we can keep Kuzmenko and Mik, and an improving Hogs and Podz, we will still have enough scoring up front to get by.

 

We could have rebuilt properly, intentionally, back in 2014 or so. And maybe had a contending team plus a stocked farm of good prospects by now.  But we didn't. But now that we have star players entering their prime, and signed a good scorer and leader in Miller for years, and with a #1 goaltender (I'm sure he'll bounce back) we might as well try and fill that cup all the way to the top. Its not ideal, as we have no futures to speak of after this, but IMO there is too much pain and uncertainty and risk if we give up on this core at present. All the ducks are not lined up in a row, but enough of them are that we are in the "might as well" phase.

 

"You can't always get what you want

But if you try sometimes

You get what you need"

 

 

 

 

But team that have intentionally tanked are historically successful in the end. Pittsburgh got Lemiuex, Tampa twice the first got Richards and Leclavier and the second time Stamkos, Hedman and Vasilevskiy, Chicago got Kane and Toews, although they did an unintentional one a few years earlier Seabrooke and Keith, Toronto got Mathews, Washington - Ovechkin, Pittsburgh again Crosby and Malkin, those are just recent, Buffalo re-did another tank 2 years ago, Ottawa 3 years ago, New Jersey 3 years ago, NYR tank but kind of a retool too.

 

When the intentional tank fails they know within 3 or 4 years, when building like the Canucks it is 6 to 9 years or until the young players aren't anymore and moving on.

 

Teams that have never tanked, Vancouver, Nashville, Minnesota, San Jose, Dallas maybe, Columbus (maybe this year), Philadelphia, St louis ... the league has many that didn't intentionally tank but none have more than a single appearance or cup.

 

Most of the others have won a cup or been in the finals for more than one. All the recent cup winners except StLouis did intentional planned tanks.

 

Some teams can't be used as examples, accidental tanks don't seem to work out, they need to be part of a wider long range plan moving forward. It doesn't matter how many 1rst overalls a team gets if they can't do enough to work around the team. They just start using them for ticket sales, a reason to continue to encourage fan hope.

 

Like here, first it is Sven Baerstchi, then Boeser, then Horvat again, then even Tryamkin, then Markstrom, then Juloevi, then Pettersson, then Hughes , then Pods lots of nice new players to watch but forget the standings.

[alt kilgore]

1 hour ago, ToTellTheTruth said:

I wish some of the really old posts were around, I always posted he relied on his team mates to score and that he wasn't that much better or different than Dane Fox for his release and need for others to help him score. But he had a much "cleaner" reputation than Fox.

 

At 23rd that was where he was ranked so not much of chance taken and he did do much better than a lot of others taken before him at first. He has had at least three or more injuries to his wrist or hand, a couple requiring surgery so that could be a long term concern.

 

So much talk about how hard it is to make a trade, only if the teams want to win every trade made.

But team that have intentionally tanked are historically successful in the end. Pittsburgh got Lemiuex, Tampa twice the first got Richards and Leclavier and the second time Stamkos, Hedman and Vasilevskiy, Chicago got Kane and Toews, although they did an unintentional one a few years earlier Seabrooke and Keith, Toronto got Mathews, Washington - Ovechkin, Pittsburgh again Crosby and Malkin, those are just recent, Buffalo re-did another tank 2 years ago, Ottawa 3 years ago, New Jersey 3 years ago, NYR tank but kind of a retool too.

 

When the intentional tank fails they know within 3 or 4 years, when building like the Canucks it is 6 to 9 years or until the young players aren't anymore and moving on.

 

Teams that have never tanked, Vancouver, Nashville, Minnesota, San Jose, Dallas maybe, Columbus (maybe this year), Philadelphia, St louis ... the league has many that didn't intentionally tank but none have more than a single appearance or cup.

 

Most of the others have won a cup or been in the finals for more than one. All the recent cup winners except StLouis did intentional planned tanks.

 

Some teams can't be used as examples, accidental tanks don't seem to work out, they need to be part of a wider long range plan moving forward. It doesn't matter how many 1rst overalls a team gets if they can't do enough to work around the team. They just start using them for ticket sales, a reason to continue to encourage fan hope.

 

Like here, first it is Sven Baerstchi, then Boeser, then Horvat again, then even Tryamkin, then Markstrom, then Juloevi, then Pettersson, then Hughes , then Pods lots of nice new players to watch but forget the standings.

 

I agree that an intentional rebuild, where you strip the team down to only your few youngest prospects and trade away, or even give away, or even take on salary to give away....any veterans, no matter how well they are individually playing....has a great chance of success long term.  But probably a major overhaul like that would mean 6 + years of misery at minimum.  And because the Canucks also have not many prospects who at least are ready to jump in now, it would be on the long end of the time we got to contention.

 

But I agree that its the most surest way. It might take 10 years or even longer though. Or just three like the Rangers. A lot has to do with luck in the lottery.  And how well those trades go. But yeah, it would work, even with the Canucks.

 

The issue isn't if it will work, its about wasted opportunity now. And that, yes, we MAY get to a 90 or 95% completion in every area...prospects on the farm, an elite level top line, and first D pair, an elite goaltender, and the rest of the team good value for their production.  Enough to be regarded as one of the favourites to win the Cup if everything goes as planned. And I'd be willing to wait another decade if that was the only option today.

 

But we are now a kind of Frankenstein team. With parts that don't work well, or are sewn onto other parts that don't fit well together.  But there is a road to salvation. JR Frankenstein would have to unsew and replace the parts that are not working right with different, better, younger ones he digs up.  And because one thing we do have is a few marketable veterans with value, with a few shrewd moves, JR could, maybe, fix our defense. Enough that we could be an 80 or 85% completion, even if temporary while Petey and Hughes are in their best years. And I'd be happy with that for now. Because if we go full Def Con 1, those years will be wasted, and whats worse, Petey will probably not re-sign here. There are other teams in situations where the only real option is an intentional "tank". We have bumbled and stumbled our way into this precarious but still promising in a lot of ways, position. Might as well push it all the way

 

Its about weighing the risks vs rewards. And right now, it just makes more sense to salvage what we have and carry on.  Not forever.  If JR can't manage to swing good deals and get back what we need on the back end, then we may be forced to go scorched Earth, next season.

 

 

My response is getting long again, dammit. But I also wanted to add, that to make your point with an exaggeration, we COULD trade away every veteran player we can, including Demko, Petey, Hughes, Miller, Bo, etc and even some prospects. Those we can't get anything for, we offer them for free.  Other GMs would have to have the cap space, thats another issue. But this is just a fantasy scenario to make a point. Imagine then, we'd have multiple first round picks, and many seconds and on down too.  Plus the few decent prospects with NHL experience included in any deal.
We could instantly rebuild, with quality young players all roughly the same age. Add some cheaper vets for support and to reach the basement. We'd lose and lose for years I imagine. But we could potentially and eventually ice a team of young superstars. But because that is still no guarantee, and for how long that would take, with an empty arena, this kind of drastic strip down is just never done.  The gnashing of teeth in this town would be overwhelming if that happened. Trading Petey away just as he was reaching his prime? Yikes! I'd be mad too.

 

Its not that a complete rebuild wouldn't work, its that IMO the glass is 60% full, and why throw the Petey out with the bathwater? There is still a path to contention. The odds for it working are slim. But they are there. Its up to JR and Alvin now to salvage this core.  I think we should give them a little more rope.