Pro Tank Thread "You said that we'd be better now, better now. But you always let us down."

[Horse McHindu]

Actually I think defence is are biggest question marks for the future. Tanev and Edler are only top 4 defencemen but Im not sure how long before they decline. None of the defencemen on the roster have top 4 potential. Hughes has superstar potential. Juolevi has been disappointing but does have top 4 potential. Woo is a solid prospect but no sure thing.

Fair enough.

Here’s how I see it:

-Hughes = Top paring PMD
-Juolevi = 2nd pairing PMD
-Tryamkin (who I do think will return to us....especially even moreso now that we’re seeing his friend and countryman Goldobin having EARNED a top 6 spot) = 2nd pairing stay at home.
Pouliot/Stecher= 3rd pairing.

On that top pairing to play with Hughes, I think an aged Tanev could still be a possible option. Guys like Chatfield and Woo are long shots, but perhaps one of them breaks through.

Del Zotto and Hutton will be long gone.

I’ll also have to admit this: I was never a huge fan of Stecher, but he’s really taken a leap in his game I believe. Maybe Stecher grows enough to a point where he can ride shotgun on a first pairing with Hughes. Who knows.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Agreed. He is are third best defencemen. Do you think he would be top 4 on a playoff team?

Hmm... Maybe? More likely bottom pairing with a ton of PK time?

 

[y2kcanucks]

1) Trading of picks: Most of those picks were traded for players who themselves were young and were just entering their primes. Despite all of this "pick trading," the Canucks still have a very deep farm. Their current roster is also full of young players such as Baertschi, Horvat, Boeser, Goldobin, Pettersson, Motte, Virtanen, Leipsic, Granlund, Hutton, Pouliot, Stecher, and Gudbranson (if Guds' counts).

Most of the picks were traded for junk like Vey, Pouliot, Pedan, Gudbranson, or needlessly thrown into trades like in the Sutter trade, and the Prust acquisition. You also ignore Benning's unwillingness to acquire picks in trades, and often times has either not moved a veteran for a pick (like he didn't do with Hamhuis, Vrbata, Miller, etc.) or has moved a veteran for an older prospect like he did with Vanek. Very little quality received.

2) Veterans. Since Benning took over in 2014, not a SINGLE vet has impeded the progress of a young player or prospect. Not ONCE. The closest this ever came to happening was in 2015 when the Canucks traded for Prust since Gaunce wasn't quite NHL ready (debatable at the time). Smart GM's know that even when teams are rebuilding, it's important to have vets that were either formerly elite players (or still are), or are/were reknowned lockerroom leaders that conducted themselves the right way both on and off the ice.

Actually I think it can be argued that bringing in MDZ has impeded the progress of Ben Hutton, who has regularly been a healthy scratch or stuck on the bottom pair with Gudbranson.

Regardless, teams that are rebuilding, at least those who do successful rebuilds, avoid locking up veterans to long-term contracts while going through the process. However, in the Canucks case, the Canucks aren't rebuilding so it explains why they're going veteran heavy during these years.

3) Farm: Our Farm is deeper than it's ever been in its history.......which I find interesting since we've apparently bled away so many picks right? The top prospects in our farm have come from all rounds.....rather than just us being a beneficiary of being a bottom dweller for the past 3 years.

This is where reading comprehension goes a long way because I have already addressed this yet you conveniently chose to ignore it.

4) Home runs with Boeser, Pettersson, and Quinn Hughes:

The Canucks flat out NAILED these picks. Hughes has yet to play a game but I think we all know where this one is headed. Yes - Ehlers is better than Virtanen, and Tkachuk is better than Juolevi, but how many GM's bat 1.000? Lets take a look at Calgary, Winnipeg, and Vancouver.

Calgary Flames Draft History at hockeydb.com
Winnipeg Jets Draft History at hockeydb.com
Vancouver Canucks Draft History at hockeydb.com

We can look at other teams if you want, but a quick glance at these three teams pretty much indicates that all teams have hits and misses.......even at the top. So why discriminate against Benning and Vancouver?

A bit early to call Hughes a home run, no? What's funny is you people say it's too early to write off Juolevi, yet Quinn Hughes is already a home run pick despite not having played a game at any level since being drafted. Your bias is showing. When it's a prospect who looks good you're quick to jump to praise Benning, but if the prospect isn't tracking well you always scream to defer judgment.

Do those 3 picks look good? Of course. But do they absolve Benning of blame for f***ing up a 5th and 6th overall pick? Absolutely not. Especially when in those drafts there were players who were clearly better than the ones Benning took.

Virtanen may not be a world beater, but he looks like he'll turn into a very effective 3rd liner for us.......possibly even a 2nd liner. Raffi Torres was a former Top 5 pick was he not? I don't think it's a stretch to say that Virtanen can one day become as effective as Raffi Torres (I'm not making a stylistic comparison by the way, but rather, am just showing that just became a Top 5/6 pick doesn't end up being a superstar, does not necessarily mean that said pick can't be a long term effective player.

You may disagree with this, but I also believe that Juolevi still has a good chance of becoming a 2nd pairing PMD even if it will take a little bit of time.

I don't think Virtanen developing into a 3rd liner is reason for celebration. Even if he does find a home on the 3rd line, Benning passed up two top line wingers to take him just because he was born in Abbotsford. Absolutely idiotic.

You're going to say this about Juolevi no matter what, until it's clear he's a bust. At this point the chances of him becoming a 2nd pairing puck moving defenseman are getting slimmer by the day. That's not his style, and it doesn't look like he has it in him to be that calibre defenseman. We might have a solid bottom pairing defenseman in him. I think he'll likely end up more on the same level as a Connor Carrick. A decent defenseman, but not someone who's going to be a difference maker in any way.

A good and successful rebuild will often take 5-7 years. Yes - the Canucks brought in vets so that the kids could realistically make a push for the playoffs, and it did not pan out that way. So what? We got the best of all worlds:

1) The vets were still there to keep the kids accountable, while teaching them correct on ice and off ice habits.

2) Despite the presence of vets on the team, no young player was actually "held back" or "impeded." All of our young players played in roles that were compatible to their abilities.

3) The Canucks were able to add some great prospects due to being a lottery team (Pettersson, Hughes), along with drafting a stud in Boeser in 2015. So again - we are complaining.....why?!?!

Your biggest issue seems to be that Benning signed vets, but again.....

1) No young players were impeded due to the presence of vets
2) We haven't experienced any cap problems as of yet


You, and many others on here, seem to be angry at 'White elephants' that don't exist anywhere but in your heads. ???? Interesting.

Successful rebuilds do take time, I agree, which is why it would be nice if the Canucks would actually start one. The reasons I've listed above and in this thread suggests why I don't see them as having started one. In your world it's perfectly normal for rebuilding teams to stockpile veterans on long-term contracts, give away draft picks, shoot for the playoffs every year and call that a rebuild. In the real world that's a recipe for a bad hockey team, and that's exactly what the Canucks are.

 

[ccjon]

My goal isn't to make anyone look stupid.

All I know is this: From 2002 until around the time when Sundin left (slightly before or after), the Leafs were trying to be a cup contender and were even giving away 1st rounders if I recall correctly (something Benning has NOT done by the way.....i.e. giving away 1st's despite missing the playoffs the year before).

During Burke's reign (2008-2013), they made the playoffs once.....even during the much heralded "Shanaplan era."

My point is this: I think we might be throwing a little too much praise towards Toronto. They have made the playoffs 4 times since 2002, and haven't won a single playoff round since that time. Granted, that will likely change this coming season, but I think it's possible that some people are giving Toronto a little too much credit. Given Toronto's upcoming cap storm, I'm not sure if Toronto's "window to win" will be as wide as many people think.

Did the Leafs trade any first round picks during the Burke era (2008-2013)? You claim they were rebuilding during this time. Does a rebuilding team trade away first round picks?

 

[valkynax]

They haven’t achieved a GD thing except convince a bunch of gullible people to buy their snake oil. “Sleep doctors” 2.0

Right, because making playoffs is such a routine thing any team with half a brain stem could achieve it so easily.

And having one of the best 123C in the league is no big deal.

Care to go to the Leafs board or main board to share your pig excrement of an opinion?

You only spew these putrid garbage here because you know no one gives a f*** about what you say. So you're free to make up whatever stupid shit you feel like and revel in your own delusion that you're right. Most of us don't give even a quarter of a flying f*** because everything you said on this board are so unbelievably stupid it kills our brain cells to think about it.

And clearly your comments show that, of all things, YOU are the gullible sheep who believed everything Dim Jim broad casted like some low budget communist regime propaganda.

But keep up the Benning ass kissing, you'll make assistant GM in no time. Plus you provide invaluable entertainment to us.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Did the Leafs trade any first round picks during the Burke era (2008-2013)? You claim they were rebuilding during this time. Does a rebuilding team trade away first round picks?

Not that I recall during the Burke era (Seguin and Hamilton for Kessel?), but I’m pretty sure that this has happened on more than one occasion from 2002-2008. I could be wrong however. Too lazy to check.

 

[CanaFan]

Not that I recall during the Burke era (Seguin and Hamilton for Kessel?), but I’m pretty sure that this has happened on more than one occasion from 2002-2008. I could be wrong however. Too lazy to check.

2003
2004
2007

Leafs were “competing” for much of the 2000’s.

 

[Field of Dreams]

i am on the play like caca for kakko hype train

Cucked for kakko

 

[Horse McHindu]

2003
2004
2007

Leafs were “competing” for much of the 2000’s.

Exactly.

As much as we hate on Benning, one thing he hasn’t done since he got here is trade any firsts.

Now granted - he did apparently try to trade a 1st on two occasions back in 2016 since the Canucks has qualified for the playoffs the previous year and had EARNED the right to be supported by management, but that was the only time.

 

[Peter10]

Exactly.

As much as we hate on Benning, one thing he hasn’t done since he got here is trade any firsts.

Now granted - he did apparently try to trade a 1st on two occasions back in 2016 since the Canucks has qualified for the playoffs the previous year and had EARNED the right to be supported by management, but that was the only time.

What was the 2nd occasion in 2016? I know he tried hard for Subban but what was the other one?

Also I dont think that in 2016 they had "EARNED" it to deal the first. One could argue that it would have been defensible had he dealt the first in 2015 considering that was the year they made the playoffs but not in 2016 when they just had spectacularly crashed and where close to finish dead last, how does that earn the team the right to deal its first away?

Of course dealing the first in 2015 would have meant no Boeser for a year of Lucic.

 

[Horse McHindu]

What was the 2nd occasion in 2016? I know he tried hard for Subban but what was the other one?

Also I dont think that in 2016 they had "EARNED" it to deal the first. One could argue that it would have been defensible had he dealt the first in 2015 considering that was the year they made the playoffs but not in 2016 when they just had spectacularly crashed and where close to finish dead last, how does that earn the team the right to deal its first away?

Of course dealing the first in 2015 would have meant no Boeser for a year of Lucic.

Sorry my mistake. I accidentally thought that the Lucic pitch occurred in 2016.

The Canucks made the playoffs in 2015 and so I feel that they had done enough to earn the respect from management.

You also have to remember the Canucks were very competitive for most of 2016. My memory is starting to fade a bit, but I seem to recall them being in or near playoff contention around the 2016 deadline.

The Canucks absolutely free falled when they lost Sutter and (Edler was it?) to injuries at the start of March. Now obviously, injuries can occur to any team, and the good teams have enough organizational depth to be less susceptible to injuries, but the Canucks really did get hammered with injuries to very key players that year down the stretch which caused them to sink hard.

But yes - in my opinion, given their playoff appearance in 2015, and given that they were a competitive at the time of that 2016 deadline, the Canucks had earned the green light from management in my opinion.

Thankfully, it did not materialize, as it would have been a huge disaster.

 

[ccjon]

Not that I recall during the Burke era (Seguin and Hamilton for Kessel?), but I’m pretty sure that this has happened on more than one occasion from 2002-2008. I could be wrong however. Too lazy to check.

They traded their 2010 and 2011 first. Not sure why you can't accept the fact that the Leafs rebuild started with the "Shanaplan".

Instead of a futile attempt at making the playoffs in 2015, they tanked for McDavid and failed. They ended up with Marner instead while selling off vets for picks. Toronto deliberately put themselves in that position, and kept doing so until they came away with a franchise player. They stuck to that strategy and did the same in 2016 and got Matthews. They understood the need for an elite talent. All this while acquiring 15 draft picks and giving up 3 picks in one year (Feb 2015 to Feb 2016).

They improved their front office by hiring the brightest minds to form their management group (vs the Canucks - firing anyone with a dissenting voice). They articulated the direction of the team and did not give their fans any false hope ("there will be pain"). Like it or not, the execution and planning of the Leafs rebuild is night and day compared to the Canucks with or without Matthews, and it started after Linden and Benning came on board with the Canucks.

Shanahan put an end to their retool on the fly and went all in on a full scale rebuild. Meanwhile we're still here spinning our wheels, tanking unintentionally, and drafting with the same number of picks the NHL awards every team each year (if we're lucky and Jim hasn't thrown away picks for age-gap trash).

 

[Horse McHindu]

They traded their 2010 and 2011 first. Not sure why you can't accept the fact that the Leafs rebuild started with the "Shanaplan".

I’m not disputing the fact that the Leafs went into a full blown tear down when Shanahan came into office: My points are as follows:

1) I don’t look up to or respect Toronto since they haven’t won a playoff series since 2002. Therefore, I’m personally not impressed by the fact that they finally appear to have turned the ship around.

2) In my opinion, the Full Blown Tear down approach leads to very high potential for reward, but comes with much higher risk variance. Proof? Look at how many bad teams there have been just in the last 20 years.....and how many of those teams stayed at the bottom for a lot longer than 7 years.

In my opinion, Toronto got lucky and beat the odds. Period. They could have just as easily have ended up with Pierre Luc Dubois instead of Auston Matthews, and they’d still be a non playoff team.

So no. I don’t respect “Shanaplan.” He rolled the dice and he won big. Far more often than not, the full blown tear down approach, if successful, takes 5-7 years. If it’s not successful, it will take more than 7 years......or simply, amount to nothing.

If I walk into a casino and win a million dollars, does it mean that my strategy is safer, better, and more likely to yield success than someone who contributes to his RRSP? Is winning big at a Casino or buying a lottery ticket a duplicable model for success?

Speaking of “Shanaplan” (and this is a discussion I had with Y2K the other day):

1) None of those “stockpiled” picks that they accumulated after the 1st round appear to be developing into anything special.

2) The Leafs look like they will be entering cap hell after this season. Even if they put Horton on LTIR, the Leafs could be looking at an extra 18 million for Matthews and Marner.....and I haven’t even mentioned Nylander (or the win-now assets that they might receive for Nylander) yet. If their final net result from all of this ends up being Tavares in + Nylander/JVR/Bozak out, then how much an overall net gain was there? If at all? Because up until now, they were a first round playoff team. Do they only make the 2nd round now?

With Crosby and Ovechkin still the alpha’s of the East, combined with teams like Winnipeg, San Jose, and Nashville in the West, Toronto isn’t going anywhere in my opinion.

Instead of golfing in late April, they will be golfing in May.

 

[CanaFan]

Exactly.

As much as we hate on Benning, one thing he hasn’t done since he got here is trade any firsts.

Now granted - he did apparently try to trade a 1st on two occasions back in 2016 since the Canucks has qualified for the playoffs the previous year and had EARNED the right to be supported by management, but that was the only time.

Well he traded one of their 2014 1sts (McCann) shortly after drafting him for a ready-to-play defenseman, so I equate that to trading a first.

But ya, otherwise he has refrained from (or been unable to) trading their firsts at least. Though I don’t believe that has been entirely the plan (Subban rumours).

 

[Horse McHindu]

Well he traded one of their 2014 1sts (McCann) shortly after drafting him for a ready-to-play defenseman, so I equate that to trading a first.

Was said defenseman only a short term asset, or was he a guy believed to be both a short term AND a long term asset?

But ya, otherwise he has refrained from (or been unable to) trading their firsts at least. Though I don’t believe that has been entirely the plan (Subban rumours).

The Subban and Lucic rumors appear to be true. The Canucks were in playoff contention at the 2015 deadline and so management wanted to back up the boys.

Even at the 2016 deadline, I believe the Canucks were at or near playoff contention. They only fell off a cliff that year (in March) when they experienced some significant injuries to key players (Sutter, Edler, etc.). Given that - I think management did try to make a move for Subban at the 2016 draft. The boys had earned the green light from management, and management acted accordingly.

 

[CanaFan]

Was said defenseman only a short term asset, or was he a guy believed to be both a short term AND a long term asset?

The Subban and Lucic rumors appear to be true. The Canucks were in playoff contention at the 2015 deadline and so management wanted to back up the boys.

Even at the 2016 deadline, I believe the Canucks were at or near playoff contention. They only fell off a cliff that year (in March) when they experienced some significant injuries to key players (Sutter, Edler, etc.). Given that - I think management did try to make a move for Subban at the 2016 draft. The boys had earned the green light from management, and management acted accordingly.

Guddie was older than Kessel at the time of the trade. Both were attempts to skirt full a rebuild.

The rest is just your interpretation of whether they were “justified” or not. Either way they certainly weren’t thinking about rebuilding, just like Toronto.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Guddie was older than Kessel at the time of the trade. Both were attempts to skirt full a rebuild.

The rest is just your interpretation of whether they were “justified” or not. Either way they certainly weren’t thinking about rebuilding, just like Toronto.

Trading a low end first (McCann) + 2nd (team had just made the playoffs) for a youngish defenseman, is not the same as trading two firsts and a 2nd for a high ticket superstar (Leafs hadn’t made the playoffs for a few years).

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Toronto has more of their stockpiled-post-first round picks playing in the NHL than the Canucks have post first round picks playing in the NHL. They used one of those picks to trade for their starting goalie. Not all the picks are always going to work out but you increase the odds of getting an impact player or at the very least more depth.

 

[CanaFan]

Trading a low end first (McCann) + 2nd (team had just made the playoffs) for a youngish defenseman, is not the same as trading two firsts and a 2nd for a high ticket superstar (Leafs hadn’t made the playoffs for a few years).

The 2nd was 33rd overall in 2016 so no, the team had not “just made the playoffs”.

Also Kessel as a player is several tiers above Gudbranson as a player, hence the difference in acquisition costs. They are both the same “type” of trade however.

Moreover, this discussion highlights your tendency to make a statement (the Canucks never traded a 1st like Toronto) then when it is contradicted in fact you switch to justifying why the move was probably warranted, rather than acknowledge your initial statement of fact was incorrect. It’s a rather tiresome tact as it keeps shifting the discussion into various tangents and avoids ever finding a resolution.

 

[Horse McHindu]

The 2nd was 33rd overall in 2016 so no, the team had not “just made the playoffs”.

You are correct, my bad. My time lines are getting a bit screwed up but you are correct here. Still doesn’t change anything.

They are NOT the same kind of trade, because McCann was a low 1st round pick.....and after one year, management saw things in McCann’s game which made them feel that perhaps McCann wasn’t going to emerge into what they had hoped.

Trading a half decent prospect + 33rd overall is NOT the same as trading two firsts and a 2nd. I’m sorry, but you’re wrong here. By a ridiculous margin as well. Trading two 1st and a 2nd is putting a team’s future at risk. Trading a half-decent prospect and a 2nd for a young defenseman is in no way “mortgaging your future.”

The Canucks traded for Gudbranson largely because they had a MAJOR hole on the right side of their defense. Hence - the need to acquire a young right sided defenseman that could help the Canucks benefit both short term and long term.

And no - I’m still right. Trading McCann is NOT the equivalent of trading a 1st round pick because McCann played an entire year for Vancouver and so the Canucks had a fairly good idea what they had in him.

By your logic, the Canucks traded a 1st (Shinkaruk) for Markus Granlund as well. Ridiculous.

Ps - no one is holding a gun to your head to respond by the way. I’m fine either way.

 

[RandV]

They traded their 2010 and 2011 first. Not sure why you can't accept the fact that the Leafs rebuild started with the "Shanaplan".

Instead of a futile attempt at making the playoffs in 2015, they tanked for McDavid and failed. They ended up with Marner instead while selling off vets for picks. Toronto deliberately put themselves in that position, and kept doing so until they came away with a franchise player. They stuck to that strategy and did the same in 2016 and got Matthews. They understood the need for an elite talent. All this while acquiring 15 draft picks and giving up 3 picks in one year (Feb 2015 to Feb 2016).

I don't know exactly what's going on here because of my ignore list, but to set the record straight it's more accurate to say that Burke arrived in Toronto full of arrogance coming off his Cup win in Anaheim and thought he could skip a rebuild and just immediately turn the Leafs around. That was pretty much his first two seasons there (if I recall correctly), which of course were complete disasters.

After that initial bluster though he did back off on the arrogance and started managing the team more like a rebuild, with some good moves like making a cap trade for Jake Gardiner and signing college UFA's like Tyler Bozak. And when Nonis replaced him it was kind of the same, first year a disaster, but 2nd year more of a modest rebuild.

Of course when Shanahan came in he cleaned house and went full in on the rebuild and did a far better job of it, but he did get some benefits from the half-assed approach taken by Burke and Nonis.

 

[CanaFan]

You are correct, my bad. My time lines are getting a bit screwed up but you are correct here. Still doesn’t change anything.

They are NOT the same kind of trade, because McCann was a low 1st round pick.....and after one year, management saw things in McCann’s game which made them feel that perhaps McCann wasn’t going to emerge into what they had hoped.

Trading a half decent prospect + 33rd overall is NOT the same as trading two firsts and a 2nd. I’m sorry, but you’re wrong here. By a ridiculous margin as well. Trading two 1st and a 2nd is putting a team’s future at risk. Trading a half-decent prospect and a 2nd for a young defenseman is in no way “mortgaging your future.”

The Canucks traded for Gudbranson largely because they had a MAJOR hole on the right side of their defense. Hence - the need to acquire a young right sided defenseman that could help the Canucks benefit both short term and long term.

And no - I’m still right. Trading McCann is NOT the equivalent of trading a 1st round pick because McCann played an entire year for Vancouver and so the Canucks had a fairly good idea what they had in him.

By your logic, the Canucks traded a 1st (Shinkaruk) for Markus Granlund as well. Ridiculous.

Ps - no one is holding a gun to your head to respond by the way. I’m fine either way.

The difference between Shinkaruk and McCann is about 2 years and playing in the NHL vs AHL. Not really close. And I’ve already explained the value difference in Kessel vs Gudbranson, but of course you ignore this. Kessel was a 22 year old top line winger while Gudbranson was a 24 year old bottom pair D. That’s why the value difference, not that one was “mortgaging the future” more than the other. Both were making moves to avoid rebuilding, it’s as simple as that.

The comparable is pretty simple, but I understand your decision to argue meaningless details as it submarines your entire argument, just as you try to justify the intention to trade the 2016 5th overall as “they had earned it”. It’s a dishonest way of arguing to use facts on side of the argument (Toronto) and then use soft “justifications” on the other (Benning). Maybe Burke felt they had “earned it” too? But you don’t ever give both sides of the argument the same leniency, it’s always the Benning side alone.

Typical and tiresome.

 

[ccjon]

I’m not disputing the fact that the Leafs went into a full blown tear down when Shanahan came into office: My points are as follows:

1) I don’t look up to or respect Toronto since they haven’t won a playoff series since 2002. Therefore, I’m personally not impressed by the fact that they finally appear to have turned the ship around.

2) In my opinion, the Full Blown Tear down approach leads to very high potential for reward, but comes with much higher risk variance. Proof? Look at how many bad teams there have been just in the last 20 years.....and how many of those teams stayed at the bottom for a lot longer than 7 years.

In my opinion, Toronto got lucky and beat the odds. Period. They could have just as easily have ended up with Pierre Luc Dubois instead of Auston Matthews, and they’d still be a non playoff team.

So no. I don’t respect “Shanaplan.” He rolled the dice and he won big. Far more often than not, the full blown tear down approach, if successful, takes 5-7 years. If it’s not successful, it will take more than 7 years......or simply, amount to nothing.

If I walk into a casino and win a million dollars, does it mean that my strategy is safer, better, and more likely to yield success than someone who contributes to his RRSP? Is winning big at a Casino or buying a lottery ticket a duplicable model for success?

Speaking of “Shanaplan” (and this is a discussion I had with Y2K the other day):

1) None of those “stockpiled” picks that they accumulated after the 1st round appear to be developing into anything special.

2) The Leafs look like they will be entering cap hell after this season. Even if they put Horton on LTIR, the Leafs could be looking at an extra 18 million for Matthews and Marner.....and I haven’t even mentioned Nylander (or the win-now assets that they might receive for Nylander) yet. If their final net result from all of this ends up being Tavares in + Nylander/JVR/Bozak out, then how much an overall net gain was there? If at all? Because up until now, they were a first round playoff team. Do they only make the 2nd round now?

With Crosby and Ovechkin still the alpha’s of the East, combined with teams like Winnipeg, San Jose, and Nashville in the West, Toronto isn’t going anywhere in my opinion.

Instead of golfing in late April, they will be golfing in May.

You said the Leafs have been rebuilding the last 10 years.

The Leafs rebuild did not start in 2015, lmao.

You do realize that they haven’t won a playoff round since 2002 right?

The Leafs started rebuilding slightly at or before Sundin left them......to you know....play with us? 9.5 years ago?

We are talking about the current incarnation of the Leafs - current odds on favorite for the cup. That team was built as a result of firing Burke & then Nonis and bringing in Shanahan, Dubas, and Lou.

Do you look up to or respect Jim Benning? How many playoff series has he won since taking over? By your logic (playoff success) do you hold Gillis in high regard? If you respect Benning for building a losing team but stocking a team with prospects ... How can you not respect the Leafs?

What you also fail to recognize is a rebuild done right vs a rebuild executed poorly. You're using examples of teams that failed at rebuilding and using that as proof that all rebuilds are risky. What is the alternative to a full blown tear down? It's what Jim Benning is currently doing - tanking by accident and letting his assets deteriorate to the point that they garner next to nothing in trade value or walk away for nothing as free agents and then replace them with overpriced vets that smart teams decided weren't worth resigning. What is the successes rate of that strategy?

Based on that alternative, the only logical option is a full blown rebuild. Adding these vets hasn't done anything and based on the Canucks overall record the past 3 years has not given a winning environment for any young player to develop in.

Shanahan did roll the dice. The difference is that he kept rolling the dice until he won. And he was playing with more dice than other teams. That's what the Canucks need to do. As much as the team tried to fight against tanking, based on their record the past 3 years and projected finish this year - they might as well have done the same.

When you look at this team and the core of players that could one day win a cup - how were they acquired? Go down the list, and in 5-7 years it will be players from the draft (or as you like to refer to it as the casino). The Canucks and Leafs both tried to win big at the casino, the only part that seems to confuse you is that the team that got "lucky" was the team that played games that yielded a higher chance of winning and they played with more dice.

None of the stockpiled picks are helping? They will contribute more to the future than what they traded away. They traded away assets that won't help, for something that might.

They will be in cap hell because they have a very talented pool of young players. That is a good thing. We will be in cap hell because we have a GM who tries to outbid teams in free agency for replacement level trash year after year.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Hmmmm - if i read the comments correctly, they are suggesting the leafs never traded first round picks. the following quote disagrees:

"On September 18, 2009, the Bruins traded Kessel to the Toronto Maple Leafs in exchange for a 2010 first-round pick(Tyler Seguin), a 2010 second-round pick (Jared Knight) and a 2011 first-round pick (Dougie Hamilton)."

Needless to say, it all worked well for Boston, who then won a Stanley Cup.

 

[crobro]

If Jimplanahan nets a high end prospect or two at the 2019 draft AND convinces Tryamkin to come back the Nucks could be a fun team to watch