Tank Fails

[racerjoe]

First, what the hell is wrong with saying we could've drafted a good young player like Guenther, instead we're stuck with OEL and Garland? Is that wrong, could we not conceivably have done that? Should we not be annoyed about that?

If we had a proper plan why wouldn't they? The av's just won a cup with players that had been around since before a rebuild and these players had no issue, because there was a plan, that was possible, and that obviously worked. I certainly don't think they'll stick around and watch us just miss the playoffs every year with management saying "next year" "next year." Do you?

I don't think it's so much that they can't, more so that this plan so to speak, is very very very hard to do, to bank on what we have and hope that the plethora of holes can be filled in one off season, that we can somehow rid ourselves of these anchor contracts for players that contribute to this losing culture we have, and somehow completely turn the tides over in one year is asinine, it rarely works and it's one of the biggest reason so many of us are sour.

Did you understand what I was replying to? I was saying it is a false equivalency. The fact he is really good has more to do with my point.

Why would they leave? Well Petey has pretty much said he would. He said he want to play for a winner, and now you want to waste 4 more years of his prime, building a team that.

I agree is we continue to miss the playoffs they are gone. I even said so.

Every plan is very hard. Its not like if we do a proper rebuild we are 100% going to be anything.

Petey and Hughes aren't the be-all-end-all. People don't seem to realize that.

Guenther wad the consensus next pick at 9th. There is a reasonable assertion to be made that the Canucks would've picked BPA.

You can belittle my opinion if you so choose, but you have done nothing to discredit it as far as I'm concerned.

You're being an apologist and making excuses for a franchise that doesn't deserve it and hasn't earned it. You're part of the retool plan crowd. To each their own, I guess.

It's a plan that failed in the past under the same ownership. I base my opinions on precedent and results. Not on astronomical retool plans leading to cups.

Petey and Hughes are both top 5-10 in their position... not many teams have players that good, and less both at this age.

As I said above, my opinion on guenther clearly went over your head. Look back at what I said, then reply.

In this statement I am not part of either crowd. I haven't said anything of apologies. Again I think you are just completely missing what I said.

Its a plan that failed in a different time with a different person running it... this is why your example is so wrong. I could just as easily point to JR with the Pens and say see this is right!, Note I am not saying that though cause it too would be wrong.

I know full well what the team is doing (I happen to despise the plan).

And I know full well that certain posters have been supporters and apologists of said plan for years.

Thats fine dislike the plan, no one is saying don't have your opinion on the plan. However your example of what the worst GM did is not the same as a move 90% of other GM's make.

 

[Diogenes92]

Petey and Hughes are both top 5-10 in their position... not many teams have players that good, and less both at this age.

As I said above, my opinion on guenther clearly went over your head. Look back at what I said, then reply.

In this statement I am not part of either crowd. I haven't said anything of apologies. Again I think you are just completely missing what I said.

Its a plan that failed in a different time with a different person running it... this is why your example is so wrong. I could just as easily point to JR with the Pens and say see this is right!, Note I am not saying that though cause it too would be wrong.

Thats fine dislike the plan, no one is saying don't have your opinion on the plan. However your example of what the worst GM did is not the same as a move 90% of other GM's make.

You continue to push back against and challenge anybody who calls for a rebuild or says the retool is a mistake or that Petey and Hughes aren't necessarily worth building around.

Maybe you want to play devil's advocate and not get on board with any specific plan? But it sure seems like you are on team retool.

Same ownership. Same approach. Same results so far. When I see different results, then I'll have a reason to buy-in to a retool.

 

[racerjoe]

You continue to push back against and challenge anybody who calls for a rebuild or says the retool is a mistake or that Petey and Hughes aren't necessarily worth building around.

Maybe you want to play devil's advocate and not get on board with any specific plan? But it sure seems like you are on team retool.

Same ownership. Same approach. Same results so far. When I see different results, then I'll have a reason to buy-in to a retool.

You have a lot wrong here.

I enjoy conversing with some here that do not share the same opinions. That doesn't not have to do with our current conversation.

What I am saying, and from Petey's mouth is he won't stick around for a 3-4 year retool. He has pretty much said this. If he goes, I also think it means Hughes is gone too.

I have also said, your example is a false equivalency and this was my main point. Jim Benning failed because he is a terrible GM. It didn't matter what his plan was. It could have been a good plan and he couldn't make it a successful one. So saying this failed under Jim Benning, is pointless. Then I went farther into your example of the OEL trade, and showed why it was not the same as the Hronek trade. Here is where you seem to not grasp what I was saying. Not sure if you understand that part or not now.

 

[Diogenes92]

You have a lot wrong here.

I enjoy conversing with some here that do not share the same opinions. That doesn't not have to do with our current conversation.

What I am saying, and from Petey's mouth is he won't stick around for a 3-4 year retool. He has pretty much said this. If he goes, I also think it means Hughes is gone too.

I have also said, your example is a false equivalency and this was my main point. Jim Benning failed because he is a terrible GM. It didn't matter what his plan was. It could have been a good plan and he couldn't make it a successful one. So saying this failed under Jim Benning, is pointless. Then I went farther into your example of the OEL trade, and showed why it was not the same as the Hronek trade. Here is where you seem to not grasp what I was saying. Not sure if you understand that part or not now.

You're focusing on the parts that I honestly don't care that much about.

I don't care too much about what Petey and Hughes are saying in the media. I do believe that if they chose to stick around for a rebuild, they would still be young enough to be difference makers. I agree that they won't stick around of this retool fails.

My main beef is that the team is sticking with the same plan and up to this point, it isn't working. Maybe that will change.

We can universally agree that Benning was an all-time horrible GM.

Right now, with the results that I've been shown, I don't have much faith in Allvin either. Again, I'm a broken record here, but maybe he can change my mind with positive results next season.

The thing that's similar with the OEL/Garland trade and Hronek trade, and what bothers me the most about both trades, is the mortgaging of futures for immediate improvement. It's, imo, a desperate and low percentage strategy to build a cup contender.

 

[racerjoe]

You're focusing on the parts that I honestly don't care that much about.

I don't care too much about what Petey and Hughes are saying in the media. I do believe that if they chose to stick around for a rebuild, they would still be young enough to be difference makers. I agree that they won't stick around of this retool fails.

My main beef is that the team is sticking with the same plan and up to this point, it isn't working. Maybe that will change.

We can universally agree that Benning was an all-time horrible GM.

Right now, with the results that I've been shown, I don't have much faith in Allvin either. Again, I'm a broken record here, but maybe he can change my mind with positive results next season.

The thing that's similar with the OEL/Garland trade and Hronek trade, and what bothers me the most about both trades, is the mortgaging of futures for immediate improvement. It's, imo, a desperate and low percentage strategy to build a cup contender.

See you listen to what they say in the media, as it directly effects what they would do and if they would stick around.

You are clearly focused on details that are not correct.

I don't think Allvin has done a ton to have faith in, but I also don't think we have seen much to say one way or the other. All that I can say is he has a plan and is doing for the most part what he says. If this proves to be right or wrong I don't think we know until after next season.

And again pointing to the OEL trade and saying see it doesn't work takes all context out of everything. Why not point to the Toews trade? You are missing the point of why the OEL trade failed.

 

[tantalum]

THis is the situation no matter which way you want to spin it.

The canucks have a top 5-10 center, top 10 D-man, likely top 5-10 goaltender, and two other legitimate top line forwards (Kuz, Miller). All are currently under 30 years of age (Miller will be 30 next week).

First I think it's important to recognize that having that is not typical of a team going to a rebuild. This isn't a team that aged out and the best players are very much on the downside of their career with a poor prospect pool. The prospect pool is correct but not the other thing. This is a team that actually has/had a good core but completely messed up the surrounding roster and organization.

Second it's important to realize that when you have those players there really is very little chance that any owner or GM or whatever for any team that is going to toss that away and go "full rebuild". They will try to move forward with those pieces. Full stop. The only exception comes when those players are demanding trades.

Third...Hughes and Pettersson will not stay with a team that goes rebuild and throws away the next 4-6 years of their career. A full rebuild like many are advocating requires you to move on from all those guys listed above. ALL OF THEM. If any part of your rebuild includes keeping 2-4 of those players then you are re-tooling not rebuilding because you have a strong foundation to your core already. I suspect there aren't that many people who are actually prepared to move Pettersson, Hughes and Demko for futures. I really don't. Why? Because for 2 of those guys it makes absolutely zero sense. And the other almost zero sense.

When it comes down to it and where this team is right now you are looking at a re-tool. Things would be different if the development of Pettersson and Hughes stagnated but it didn't. They are taking the next steps the last 12 months and that changes outlook.

So then what are the needs? Well they need to rebalance cap and add two top 4 D-men at a minimum in the relative short term. It is highly unlikely that those D-men are coming from the draft to have an impact in the next few years. One maybe but two likely not a chance. A move for a younger top 4 D-man was inevitable and quite frankly I don't really think it matters when that move is made. They found a guy they like and made the move. Time will tell if they made the right scouting assessment. But by and large the cost wasn't that extravagant for that type of player.

It's also worth keeping sight of the fact the canucks did not actually trade the really important pick.

In the end the problem with a full on tanking rebuild where you jettison everyone is that 5-7 years down the line when draft picks grow up and are 25ish years old, you are actually unlikely to have players like Pettersson and Hughes. Most of the time that also doesn't work. By the opinion of many Yzerman fleeced the canucks on the Hronek trade. However, applying the standards many seem to have, Yzerman in no way should be signing a nearly 27 year old Larkin to the deal he did either. To me it seems like the Wings are almost stuck in an arrested rebuild as so often happens. (I think it's also worthwhile to note that Yzerman has said he might use the pick in trade as well).

In the end a team gets built through draft, UFA signings and trades. There is no set order for these things to happen.

 

[Diogenes92]

See you listen to what they say in the media, as it directly effects what they would do and if they would stick around.

You are clearly focused on details that are not correct.

I don't think Allvin has done a ton to have faith in, but I also don't think we have seen much to say one way or the other. All that I can say is he has a plan and is doing for the most part what he says. If this proves to be right or wrong I don't think we know until after next season.

And again pointing to the OEL trade and saying see it doesn't work takes all context out of everything. Why not point to the Toews trade? You are missing the point of why the OEL trade failed.

Sounds like selective blindness to me.

You're not committing to anything. I suppose that's as good as plan for a Canucks fan as anything.

In regards to the OEL trade. It never mattered what happened with OEL and Garland in terms of their success. It was always a failed trade from the beginning for what they gave up (cap flexibility, top ten draft pick, and other pieces)

 

[M2Beezy]

If the team can win 15 of the last 20 games there is a good chance our pick can drop to around 15th instead of top 10. Thats something..

 

[Diogenes92]

THis is the situation no matter which way you want to spin it.

The canucks have a top 5-10 center, top 10 D-man, likely top 5-10 goaltender, and two other legitimate top line forwards (Kuz, Miller). All are currently under 30 years of age (Miller will be 30 next week).

First I think it's important to recognize that having that is not typical of a team going to a rebuild. This isn't a team that aged out and the best players are very much on the downside of their career with a poor prospect pool. The prospect pool is correct but not the other thing. This is a team that actually has/had a good core but completely messed up the surrounding roster and organization.

Second it's important to realize that when you have those players there really is very little chance that any owner or GM or whatever for any team that is going to toss that away and go "full rebuild". They will try to move forward with those pieces. Full stop. The only exception comes when those players are demanding trades.

Third...Hughes and Pettersson will not stay with a team that goes rebuild and throws away the next 4-6 years of their career. A full rebuild like many are advocating requires you to move on from all those guys listed above. ALL OF THEM. If any part of your rebuild includes keeping 2-4 of those players then you are re-tooling not rebuilding because you have a strong foundation to your core already. I suspect there aren't that many people who are actually prepared to move Pettersson, Hughes and Demko for futures. I really don't. Why? Because for 2 of those guys it makes absolutely zero sense. And the other almost zero sense.

When it comes down to it and where this team is right now you are looking at a re-tool. Things would be different if the development of Pettersson and Hughes stagnated but it didn't. They are taking the next steps the last 12 months and that changes outlook.

So then what are the needs? Well they need to rebalance cap and add two top 4 D-men at a minimum in the relative short term. It is highly unlikely that those D-men are coming from the draft to have an impact in the next few years. One maybe but two likely not a chance. A move for a younger top 4 D-man was inevitable and quite frankly I don't really think it matters when that move is made. They found a guy they like and made the move. Time will tell if they made the right scouting assessment. But by and large the cost wasn't that extravagant for that type of player.

It's also worth keeping sight of the fact the canucks did not actually trade the really important pick.

In the end the problem with a full on tanking rebuild where you jettison everyone is that 5-7 years down the line when draft picks grow up and are 25ish years old, you are actually unlikely to have players like Pettersson and Hughes. Most of the time that also doesn't work. By the opinion of many Yzerman fleeced the canucks on the Hronek trade. However, applying the standards many seem to have, Yzerman in no way should be signing a nearly 27 year old Larkin to the deal he did either. To me it seems like the Wings are almost stuck in an arrested rebuild as so often happens. (I think it's also worthwhile to note that Yzerman has said he might use the pick in trade as well).

In the end a team gets built through draft, UFA signings and trades. There is no set order for these things to happen.

Results matter. What has this core proven to fans so far other than losing when games matter?

It may be a defeatist attitude, but is it possible Benning already destroyed any chance of this core ever being good enough to win a cup before their play declines?

What's your take on the results of multiple failed "retools" from the Canucks so far this past 9 years? They basically had a bunch of accidental tanks.

What's your opinion on what the Hronek trade will turn out to be? Will he move the playoff needle? Was it worth giving up those premium assets to take a flyer on a team that isn't deep enough for a meaningful playoff run?

Rebuilds don't have a set timeline. If done right, its reasonable to say that it could have been done in 3-5 years if they'd full-on tanked this year and picked up an asset like Bedard, Fantilli, Carlsson. But alas, its too late for that to happen now without lottery luck.

 

[4th line culture]

If the team can win 15 of the last 20 games there is a good chance our pick can drop to around 15th instead of top 10. Thats something..

The canucks way

 

[DonnyNucker]

If the team can win 15 of the last 20 games there is a good chance our pick can drop to around 15th instead of top 10. Thats something..

That would be fantastic. Would be nice heading into the off-season with some positivity for the fans and players.

 

[Numba9]

I think one of the issues is that the fact the Canucks are so low in the standings this year that people/media are just lumping the Canucks in with real rebuilding teams like Anaheim Chicago etc.. If you look at the teams around them right now, the Canucks wiped the floor with them everytime they play, even earlier in the season when they played with zero structure. The Canucks are 10th in GF/per game (which I'm sure will go up considering the remaining schedule), if you look at the teams around them in that list, pretty much all teams are playoff teams. The hardest part of a team to build is a good offense (as shown every year at the draft) and we just want to throw it all away so we can play the lottery every year and lose? This Canucks are much closer to Ottawa or Buffalo than they are to the bottom feeders. If they get decent goaltending and play with more defensive structure there is no reason that this team can't make the playoffs next year.

 

[604]

Oel will prob get bought out

LTIR?

Also, on a seperate note, it's clear we want to compete next year...losing this year (for the rest of the season) helps us compete next year...our guys need to get on it.

 

[DonnyNucker]

LTIR?

Also, on a seperate note, it's clear we want to compete next year...losing this year (for the rest of the season) helps us compete next year...our guys need to get on it.

Sends Hughes and Elias some DM’s telling them to stop trying

 

[Bankerguy]

If the Canucks didnt have OEL's contract, i think they'd actually be okay positioned for a quick-retool.
Becuase they could retain and move Myers or just ride out his contract (only a year left).
They'd have adequate cap space to fill a hole (maybe two) via UFA market...
Hughes, Petey, Kuzy, Miller, Demko... they have key positions filled... the problem is we're missing two top 4 Dmen and 2C or 3C.... that's not impossible to fill.
Problem is that with OEL, its such a large chunk of the cap.... we dont have "cap-nimbleness" to fill key holes..
so, we're essentially stuck in limbo.
life as a Canuck fan.

 

[racerjoe]

Sounds like selective blindness to me.

You're not committing to anything. I suppose that's as good as plan for a Canucks fan as anything.

In regards to the OEL trade. It never mattered what happened with OEL and Garland in terms of their success. It was always a failed trade from the beginning for what they gave up (cap flexibility, top ten draft pick, and other pieces)

I haven't given my opinion. I have stated what I the team is doing, and what their options are. I have not stated what I think they should be doing. So yes I am not committing, I never tried to.

You need more reading comprehension. The OEL trade is a success if instead of 31 year old OEL, they got back 26 year old McAvoy. Cap space matters on what you use it on. No I am not suggesting that trade was available, just showing that yes the talent and age of players matter. What you use your cap space on matters.

 

[Diogenes92]

I haven't given my opinion. I have stated what I the team is doing, and what their options are. I have not stated what I think they should be doing. So yes I am not committing, I never tried to.

You need more reading comprehension. The OEL trade is a success if instead of 31 year old OEL, they got back 26 year old McAvoy. Cap space matters on what you use it on. No I am not suggesting that trade was available, just showing that yes the talent and age of players matter. What you use your cap space on matters.

I hope you're not serious...

Looks like I wasted my time. I was hoping for some sort of substance.

 

[racerjoe]

I hope you're not serious...

Looks like I wasted my time. I was hoping for some sort of substance.

So just to confirm if the Canucks traded for Charlie McAvoy instead of OEL you don't think we win that trade?

 

[Diogenes92]

So just to confirm if the Canucks traded for Charlie McAvoy instead of OEL you don't think we win that trade?

You already know the answer to such a pointless question.

Benning would never have been able to pull off a coup like that, and Boston would've never considered it.

The OEL debacle is easily one of the worst trades in Canucks history.

I truly hope you're not comparing getting Hronek to getting McAvoy in some archaic way.

 

[racerjoe]

You already know the answer to such a pointless question.

Benning would never have been able to pull off a coup like that, and Boston would've never considered it.

The OEL debacle is easily one of the worst trades in Canucks history.

I truly hope you're not comparing getting Hronek to getting McAvoy in some archaic way.

Who was debating any of this... this is why you missed the point, and don't comprehend...

You already know the answer to such a pointless question.

Benning would never have been able to pull off a coup like that, and Boston would've never considered it.

The OEL debacle is easily one of the worst trades in Canucks history.

I truly hope you're not comparing getting Hronek to getting McAvoy in some archaic way.

This is how I feel about you comparaing OEL top HRonek.

 

[Numba9]

I hope you're not serious...

Looks like I wasted my time. I was hoping for some sort of substance.

I think it's pretty clear what @racerjoe is getting at. It's about execution. There are times where a rebuild makes the most sense and other times where a retool makes the most sense. Right now, there's a decent argument that a retool can work if the execution is good.

 

[Diogenes92]

Who was debating any of this... this is why you missed the point, and don't comprehend...

By making useless points about McAvoy instead of OEL?

There's no logic to that line of thinking to begin with.

You've clearly been avoiding the entire point of the converstion. If you have no opinion on the direction of the team then don't waste people's time.

 

[racerjoe]

By making useless points about McAvoy instead of OEL?

There's no logic to that line of thinking to begin with.

You've clearly been avoiding the entire point of the converstion. If you have no opinion on the direction of the team then don't waste people's time.

Hahahaha. Seriously.

You have still missed the most important points in this conversation. If you could understand these points maybe we could get to my thoughts and my opinion. But we can't even get that far.

 

[Diogenes92]

I think it's pretty clear what @racerjoe is getting at. It's about execution. There are times where a rebuild makes the most sense and other times where a retool makes the most sense. Right now, there's a decent argument that a retool can work if the execution is good.

They already rpelied that they have no opinion on the subject and haven't committed to any sort of argument. Just taking in circles.

But seeing whose posts they are liking I have a pretty good idea what they actually think, which is why I have been arguing this entire time.

 

[Diogenes92]

Hahahaha. Seriously.

You have still missed the most important points in this conversation. If you could understand these points maybe we could get to my thoughts and my opinion. But we can't even get that far.

I've been focused on discussing the retool plan being a mistake.

You've been talking in pointless circles and avoiding what could've been a useful discussion. Say something that actually has substance. Its a waste of time otherwise.