The Rebuild Started...

[me2]

There are 2 sorts of people.


There are the people that would invest $100K with the JB Investment Fund, 50 years later they retire and collect their check. They look at the $100K check and think, "I would have liked more but I got all my money back so I'm happy.".

Then there are those that deposit their money with the Conservative Investment Fund, 50 years later collect a check for $1.15m, and can't work out why the first group are happy.

 

[Canucks1096]

Gillis Gillis Gillis Gillis Gillis...where's alternate? He around?



Okay, how many damn years are people going to keep moaning about the guy who got fired four years ago? Whatever else Benning did or didn't inherit, he inherited a full slate of draft picks in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. He inherited a farm team that was newly created and well supported by its local fans. I mean, jesus. Is this the only bad team in the NHL? Nobody ever took over a team without that last guy's stuff, which in case you forget was a 101 point team in the 2014/15 season...

You know what? **** it. I've had this conversation too many damn times over the last few years. You want to rehash the BUT GILLIS!! stuff? Just go through my posting history. It's all in there.

Imagine Benning took over with nothing. Every gm has a slate of draft picks every year. What's he done with them? Look at that.



He got a 2nd round pick for Garrison. Just like he did with Bieksa. What happened to those picks? What did he do with them?



Appeal to popularity, appeal to popularity, appeal to popularity. Big whoop. For the record, I hated the Pouliot deal, was willing to withhold judgement on Vey and was lukewarm on the Baertschi deal. And who gives a **** who liked the deals at the time? The best those deals has produced is a guy whose best year is 35 points. That's it.



For two seconds, a 3rd, a 4th and a 5th, you think maybe one more player should have been added to the prospect pool...hmm. Really? People seem to be pretty stoked with Woo, Lind and Gadjovic...those are the recent 2nds. Remember Hansen? He was a 9th round pick ffs, and he managed to spend a season riding shotgun with the Sedins and picked up 20 goals that year.

We need more damn draft picks.



We think Benning's not rebuilding because he isn't rebuilding. Benning just can't get enough good young guys to form a young core.

Let's try this one more time. As of right now there are 2 full time players that was drafted by Benning from 2014 to 2017 that's on the roster. Why because the players are not ready yet. So if Benning didn't trade those picks for young players he would of had 5 more picks. Considering the fact as of right now he got 2 nhl players out of around 28 picks so far that's on the roster. It is more than fair to say he would have 1 more nhl player on the roster if he didn't trade those 5 picks. Saying 1 is actually generous Because there is no player outside of the 1st round that is on the roster now. That's why Benning need to sign those Vets because the prospects are not ready. I really believe because Benning signing Vets is tricking you guys into think he is not rebuilding. If prospects not ready he needs to fill the roster. Common sense.

I think you were a little bit confuse on my point about the 5 draft picks he traded. I am not saying if he kept those picks there only 1 future nhl player. I am saying there only would be 1 on the current roster because those prospects won't be ready.

I will be honest the debate a getting a little confusing.

You are kind all over the map. One argument you indicating to me that Benning is great drafting with the Lind Gadjovich Woo. Another argument you indicating he is not good at getting young players and that's why he can't build a good core.

Benning traded that 2nd for Sutter but got a 3rd back. That 2nd for Garrison went to Vey. I think it actually the outcome that is making you think it is not a rebuild. Pretend Vey turned into a good player. Everyone would think it's a good rebuilding move becuase they got a good player. But we are have a Debate about the action of a rebuild and not having a debate about the results. I am actually ok with those type of trades. Hawks got lucky on getting a Sharp for a 3rd pick when Sharp was struggling with the Flyers.

 

[Canucks1096]

Another thing I want to say is so many of you had said with Beagle and Rousell signing Canucks are not rebuilding. This signings actually shows the Canucks are rebuilding. The prospects the Canucks have are Potential scorer and not checkers. So in free agent Canucks decided not to go after Neal, Stastny, and they went checkers instead. ask yourself Why? Because they want give the offensive minutes, top lines, offensive zone starts ppp to the younger players. The checkers get tough mins and young players get the easier mins

All this talk with Sutter playing Pettersson is nonsense. It's not going to happen. They may try in training camp but Green will know after the game is not going to work. Pettersson most likely will play center

 

[Kryten]

Another thing I want to say is so many of you had said with Beagle and Rousell signing Canucks are not rebuilding. This signings actually shows the Canucks are rebuilding. The prospects the Canucks have are Potential scorer and not checkers. So in free agent Canucks decided not to go after Neal, Stastny, and they went checkers instead. ask yourself Why? Because they want give the offensive minutes, top lines, offensive zone starts ppp to the younger players. The checkers get tough mins and young players get the easier mins

All this talk with Sutter playing Pettersson is nonsense. It's not going to happen. They may try in training camp but Green will know after the game is not going to work. Pettersson most likely will play center

Signing two 4th liners for 3rd line money and 2nd line term is not rebuilding. I and many of us would rather he sign these types of players for 1-2 years and for cheap. These are the types of players whose bodies wear down very fast over 30 usually. These are the types of players who can be flipped for picks on 1 year deals if they are desirable to playoff teams. These are the types of players who get signed after July 1 and are plentiful every single offseason

 

[Canucks1096]

Signing two 4th liners for 3rd line money and 2nd line term is not rebuilding. I and many of us would rather he sign these types of players for 1-2 years and for cheap. These are the types of players whose bodies wear down very fast over 30 usually. These are the types of players who can be flipped for picks on 1 year deals if they are desirable to playoff teams. These are the types of players who get signed after July 1 and are plentiful every single offseason

You don't need to care about the money and term. First reason it is not your money. Second reason Canucks won't be in major cap issues until 3 or 4 years until they become a good team. 3rd reason Canucks will not losing any good young players because of those contracts. Why all you guys making such a big fuss about it.

People don't seem to realize it takes two to tango. We don't know if Benning did offer 1 or 2 year contract. If those players don't want to sign 1 or 2 years. Not much Benning can do.

The 4th liners are not really even competing with the younger players for the same roster spots.

Benning didn't try to sign any offensive guy this off season. Signed these grinders to play on the checking line/pk/defensive faceoffs to allow younger players to get easier minutes. Benning didn't bring offensive guys to compete for spots with the young players. If you are giving the big offensive roles to the young players. How is that not a rebuild?

User that are claiming the rebuild didn't start yet is so ridiculous.

 

[LaVar]

You don't need to care about the money and term. First reason it is not your money. Second reason Canucks won't be in major cap issues until 3 or 4 years until they become a good team. 3rd reason Canucks will not losing any good young players because of those contracts. Why all you guys making such a big fuss about it.

What?

Of course we need to care, and you should care.

You may think this is a minor move and we "won't be in major cap issues", but these details are what differentiate the elite from the lower tier teams. Cap flexibility is a good thing to have, and signing bottom 6 scrubs to multi-year deals while overpaying in term (and including L-NTC's!) isn't what re-building teams should do.

If they suck at making minor moves like this, what makes you think they have what it takes to build a championship contending team?

People don't seem to realize it takes two to tango. We don't know if Benning did offer 1 or 2 year contract. If those players don't want to sign 1 or 2 years. Not much Benning can do.

He could, you know, not overpay them?

Just because their demands are high doesn't mean you need to fulfill them and handcuff your team.

The 4th liners are not really even competing with the younger players for the same roster spots.

I mean, they kind of are.

Baertschi - Horvat - Boeser
Eriksson - Sutter (lol) - Pettersson
Granlund - Gagner - Virtanen
Roussel - Beagle - Schaller
Leipsic, Gaunce

Over the past 2 years signing Beagle, Schaller, Roussel, and Gagner takes away four spots that could be given to younger players (i.e. Leipsic, Gaunce, Gaudette)...

But... but... those prospects would be wasted on the bottom 6! Yeah, Horvat sure turned out bad...

Benning didn't try to sign any offensive guy this off season. Signed these grinders to play on the checking line/pk/defensive faceoffs to allow younger players to get easier minutes. Benning didn't bring offensive guys to compete for spots with the young players. If you are giving the big offensive roles to the young players. How is that not a rebuild?

Because the last time he did he signed an absolute garbage contract.

And this whole, "only veterans can play in the bottom 6" narrative is so goddamn stupid.

Are you telling me you would rather overpay FA's (setting a precedence while doing so), than give guys like Leipsic (who actually looked good in his short stint), Gaunce (not much worse than the guys we targeted, especially when you factor in cap-hit), Archibald (at 700k he is a bargain compared to 3m for Beagle/Roussel!) opportunities?

 

[Kryten]

You don't need to care about the money and term. First reason it is not your money. Second reason Canucks won't be in major cap issues until 3 or 4 years until they become a good team. 3rd reason Canucks will not losing any good young players because of those contracts. Why all you guys making such a big fuss about it.

People don't seem to realize it takes two to tango. We don't know if Benning did offer 1 or 2 year contract. If those players don't want to sign 1 or 2 years. Not much Benning can do.

The 4th liners are not really even competing with the younger players for the same roster spots.

Benning didn't try to sign any offensive guy this off season. Signed these grinders to play on the checking line/pk/defensive faceoffs to allow younger players to get easier minutes. Benning didn't bring offensive guys to compete for spots with the young players. If you are giving the big offensive roles to the young players. How is that not a rebuild?

User that are claiming the rebuild didn't start yet is so ridiculous.

Claiming money and term dont matter is ridiculous. Money always matters. We are now paying 3m to 4th liners, dont you see a consequence of better players using that as leverage in negotiations for our team in the future? These types of signings is what prevents teams from landing any future star UFAs in the future since they run into cap problems, let alone re-signing our own hopeful stars. Giving them 4 years shoots yourself in the foot in the future when they likely rapidly decline and you cant trade them and they are blocking players from your own system or UFA who are better. Our team might lose Goldobin if Pettersson makes the team this year. If these two players were going to get this money and term from other teams then good for them and have fun playing for someone else. We have seen many other similar players sign for way cheaper and on 1-2 year deals. The fact that these players signed here just shows us that Benning went over and above all other bidders on July 1st. I hope it works out but come on

 

[LaVar]

Claiming money and term dont matter is ridiculous. Money always matters. We are now paying 3m to 4th liners, dont you see a consequence of better players using that as leverage in negotiations for our team in the future? These types of signings is what prevents teams from landing any future star UFAs in the future since they run into cap problems, let alone re-signing our own hopeful stars. Giving them 4 years shoots yourself in the foot in the future when they likely rapidly decline and you cant trade them and they are blocking players from your own system or UFA who are better. Our team might lose Goldobin if Pettersson makes the team this year. If these two players were going to get this money and term from other teams then good for them and have fun playing for someone else. We have seen many other similar players sign for way cheaper and on 1-2 year deals. The fact that these players signed here just shows us that Benning went over and above all other bidders on July 1st. I hope it works out but come on

hmm.. I didn't even include Goldobin in my projected line-up above, lol... just shows that we already have so many bodies and signing 3 UFA's (Schaller by himself would be passable) at this juncture makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Canucks1096]

What?

Of course we need to care, and you should care.

You may think this is a minor move and we "won't be in major cap issues", but these details are what differentiate the elite from the lower tier teams. Cap flexibility is a good thing to have, and signing bottom 6 scrubs to multi-year deals while overpaying in term (and including L-NTC's!) isn't what re-building teams should do.

If they suck at making minor moves like this, what makes you think they have what it takes to build a championship contending team?



He could, you know, not overpay them?

Just because their demands are high doesn't mean you need to fulfill them and handcuff your team.



I mean, they kind of are.

Baertschi - Horvat - Boeser
Eriksson - Sutter (lol) - Pettersson
Granlund - Gagner - Virtanen
Roussel - Beagle - Schaller
Leipsic, Gaunce

Over the past 2 years signing Beagle, Schaller, Roussel, and Gagner takes away four spots that could be given to younger players (i.e. Leipsic, Gaunce, Gaudette)...

But... but... those prospects would be wasted on the bottom 6! Yeah, Horvat sure turned out bad...



Because the last time he did he signed an absolute garbage contract.

And this whole, "only veterans can play in the bottom 6" narrative is so goddamn stupid.

Are you telling me you would rather overpay FA's (setting a precedence while doing so), than give guys like Leipsic (who actually looked good in his short stint), Gaunce (not much worse than the guys we targeted, especially when you factor in cap-hit), Archibald (at 700k he is a bargain compared to 3m for Beagle/Roussel!) opportunities?

So if we didn't sign Beagle and Rousell. That means we are going to become and elite team? Rebuilding team and Stanley cup team. There going to manage the cap differently. A cup contender is not going to spend all that money on 4th liners because they have a lot stars to pay and Canucks don't. But Canucks are not an elite team they have lot cap to spend and they don't need to worry the cap for next 3 or 4 years.

There not handcuff the team because they don't need that cap for the next 3. or 4 years.

You are going to make a lineup to help your argument. I can do the same thing too. Trust me Sutter will not be on the second line. Also Green doesn't like Gagner at center.

It depends on the players and what role your 4th line has. Beagle is going to be the 4th line center. It's going to be all defensive zone starts. So Goldobin will not have any impact in that role. Same with Liepsic, we saw the script in Vegas. Played on 4th and got no offensive opportunities and struggle.

Archibald in my opinion is not even a nhl players. At 28 years of age he signed a 2 way contract. He couldn't get a 1 way contract from any team in the league. Gaunce can't even put up more 10 points a season.

 

[Canucks1096]

Anyway with the ugly Canucks Schedule this year. There probably a lot injuries again. A few ltir and maybe at least 3 or 4 forwards out at a time. So whoever healthy gets to be in the lineup.

Not much of a point in debating who will be ahead of who

 

[Canucks1096]

Claiming money and term dont matter is ridiculous. Money always matters. We are now paying 3m to 4th liners, dont you see a consequence of better players using that as leverage in negotiations for our team in the future? These types of signings is what prevents teams from landing any future star UFAs in the future since they run into cap problems, let alone re-signing our own hopeful stars. Giving them 4 years shoots yourself in the foot in the future when they likely rapidly decline and you cant trade them and they are blocking players from your own system or UFA who are better. Our team might lose Goldobin if Pettersson makes the team this year. If these two players were going to get this money and term from other teams then good for them and have fun playing for someone else. We have seen many other similar players sign for way cheaper and on 1-2 year deals. The fact that these players signed here just shows us that Benning went over and above all other bidders on July 1st. I hope it works out but come on

A rebuilding team and a cup contender team are going to manage the cap differently. When it"s time to resign Pettersson and Hughes. The priority is going to sign your stars first ahead of 4th liners. Right now aside from Boeser there won't any stars to sign until Pettersson and Hughes contract ends so Benning can give those contracts to Rousell and Beagle.

I honestly don't see how these contracts impact other players. Take Eriksson for example He signed 6 M. Horvat signed 5.5 M. Good examples are the hawks they signed Campbell to a 8yr 56.8 M contract. Keith and Seabrook didn't demand way higher contract than Campbell.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Another thing I want to say is so many of you had said with Beagle and Rousell signing Canucks are not rebuilding. This signings actually shows the Canucks are rebuilding. The prospects the Canucks have are Potential scorer and not checkers. So in free agent Canucks decided not to go after Neal, Stastny, and they went checkers instead. ask yourself Why? Because they want give the offensive minutes, top lines, offensive zone starts ppp to the younger players. The checkers get tough mins and young players get the easier mins

Remind me again, how defensively oriented were Gaunce's minutes last year? Next, is he a young player? Last, does potentially losing a spot to Schaller/Beagle/Rousell help him develop?

The tripe that is exiting Benning's mouth these days is hilarious. You couldn't have written better material. He wants to give offensive minutes to the prospects? Ok, fine. His solution is to sign 4th liners? WTF? 4th liners, by their very definition, are players that can't or shouldn't play 3rd/2nd/1st line (better) minutes in a game. The tougher minutes. So Benning's logic is to reduce the burden on the prospects by hiring players that cannot give them a break at ES. Wonderful. The prospects have to play the 1st/2nd/3rd line minutes because no one else can. This somehow makes it easier on them? Nope. It makes it harder.

What's more, Gaunce actually showed an ability to wrestle very difficult ES minutes to a stalemate. That's not something many 4th liners can do. So there really wasn't a problem at 4LW. They have plenty of RW depth, and they could have picked up Czarnik, Shore, Nash, Peca or just Schaller to be the 4C. That's all they needed to do. Instead, they strap the team to two more terrible contracts. Another offseason hit out of the park by this abhorrent regime. Textbook rebuilding.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Let's try this one more time. As of right now there are 2 full time players that was drafted by Benning from 2014 to 2017 that's on the roster. Why because the players are not ready yet. So if Benning didn't trade those picks for young players he would of had 5 more picks. Considering the fact as of right now he got 2 nhl players out of around 28 picks so far that's on the roster. It is more than fair to say he would have 1 more nhl player on the roster if he didn't trade those 5 picks. Saying 1 is actually generous Because there is no player outside of the 1st round that is on the roster now. That's why Benning need to sign those Vets because the prospects are not ready. I really believe because Benning signing Vets is tricking you guys into think he is not rebuilding. If prospects not ready he needs to fill the roster. Common sense.

Okay. if you can't see the connection I've been trying to make that more picks = more chances at prospects then I don't know what to tell you. It's basically the entire reason GMs like to get as many as possible, especially if their team's in the dumpster and they want to get out of it.

I think you were a little bit confuse on my point about the 5 draft picks he traded. I am not saying if he kept those picks there only 1 future nhl player. I am saying there only would be 1 on the current roster because those prospects won't be ready.

How long is it you think prospects need to get ready? Are you another one who's been fooled into thinking that prospects are usually just dipping their toes in the NHL at 22 or 23? They don't. That's not typical for good ones. What Boeser did last year is actually far more typical of what good prospects really do if you look around the NHL. Players worth building teams around don't spend years bumbling around lesser leagues after their draft years. They hit early and hard. The fact we're still waiting tells me there aren't enough good prospects in the pipes to build around, and the lack of draft picks is a big part of why.

I will be honest the debate a getting a little confusing.

You are kind all over the map. One argument you indicating to me that Benning is great drafting with the Lind Gadjovich Woo. Another argument you indicating he is not good at getting young players and that's why he can't build a good core.

*sigh* No, I am not saying Benning is great at drafting. I used those players as an example of what he can get if he actually tries to draft instead of losing picks for other teams' failed garbage prospects. Maybe they become nothing. But it's better we spend picks hoping for upside instead of trading them for players whose upside has already failed to materialize.

Benning traded that 2nd for Sutter but got a 3rd back. That 2nd for Garrison went to Vey. I think it actually the outcome that is making you think it is not a rebuild. Pretend Vey turned into a good player. Everyone would think it's a good rebuilding move becuase they got a good player. But we are have a Debate about the action of a rebuild and not having a debate about the results. I am actually ok with those type of trades. Hawks got lucky on getting a Sharp for a 3rd pick when Sharp was struggling with the Flyers.

Uh...have you noticed those trades haven't produced good players for us? That's just kinda why I've been telling you they're not good moves for us. Yeah, if Vey turned into a good player it wouldn't be a bad deal. But he didn't. Neither did Pedan, Pouliot, Etem...once again, the best deal Benning's done that way is for Baertschi. Not sure why you overlook that detail.

Yeah, if trading picks for older prospects had produced good players, it would be a valid rebuilding tactic. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

---------------------------------------

And as for why money and cap space matter, it's because they give you options. If you have cap space to spare, you don't have to carefully balance incoming and outgoing salaries when you consider trades. If there's a big money guy on another team who becomes available for one reason or another, you have cap space to do that. You have to option to trade with teams that need to shed salary. That gives you a bit of leverage...well, usually. Somehow Benning solved the Pens' cap problems for them and paid them with an extra dman and a higher draft pick. But what competent GMs typically do is offer to take problem contracts if sweeteners such as picks or young players are thrown in.

Not here, obviously.

 

[RandV]

A rebuilding team and a cup contender team are going to manage the cap differently.

Yes exactly. Typically a rebuilding team floats closer to the salary floor than the ceiling keeping room to give big raises to high end draft picks and occasionally pick up some assets by acquiring other teams bad contracts. Also typically when they feel their team is ready to compete they will burn up remaining cap space on UFA's and big ticket trades.

Though I'm sure there's also a long list of teams who managed the salary cap during a rebuild by sticking close to continually bringing in high priced UFA vets on long term deals sticking close to the ceiling throughout the entire "rebuilding" process.

 

[me2]

You don't need to care about the money and term. First reason it is not your money. Second reason Canucks won't be in major cap issues until 3 or 4 years until they become a good team. 3rd reason Canucks will not losing any good young players because of those contracts. Why all you guys making such a big fuss about it.

I take it you are a JB Investment Fund customer.

 

[Canucks1096]

Remind me again, how defensively oriented were Gaunce's minutes last year? Next, is he a young player? Last, does potentially losing a spot to Schaller/Beagle/Rousell help him develop?

The tripe that is exiting Benning's mouth these days is hilarious. You couldn't have written better material. He wants to give offensive minutes to the prospects? Ok, fine. His solution is to sign 4th liners? WTF? 4th liners, by their very definition, are players that can't or shouldn't play 3rd/2nd/1st line (better) minutes in a game. The tougher minutes. So Benning's logic is to reduce the burden on the prospects by hiring players that cannot give them a break at ES. Wonderful. The prospects have to play the 1st/2nd/3rd line minutes because no one else can. This somehow makes it easier on them? Nope. It makes it harder.

What's more, Gaunce actually showed an ability to wrestle very difficult ES minutes to a stalemate. That's not something many 4th liners can do. So there really wasn't a problem at 4LW. They have plenty of RW depth, and they could have picked up Czarnik, Shore, Nash, Peca or just Schaller to be the 4C. That's all they needed to do. Instead, they strap the team to two more terrible contracts. Another offseason hit out of the park by this abhorrent regime. Textbook rebuilding.

Sutter has similiar Defensive zone starts and still manage 26 points. I like the fact you were just cherry picking last season. What about the year before he had 40% offensive starts which is common for 3rd/4th lines and manage 5 A the whole season. Schaller Beagle and Rousell are proven to get at least 20 to 25 points a season. They get anywhere from 30 to 40% offensive zone starts. I would be very surprised that Gaunce can get to that level.

I really don't think Canucks are even that high on Gaunce. They did leave him in the expansion draft.

Was Gaunce that effective in his role. Read below

Brendan Gaunce is Struggling Under a Tougher Defensive Load

You are thinking like its 1985 right now. It or 2018. 4th line players are not just players than can play a few mins a game and are liability on the ice. Lot of teams roll 4 lines. The lines name 1st 2nd 3rd 4th are usually measure on offence. The 4th line doesn't have much offence and that's why it's called a 4th line. It doesn't mean that line can't play tough minutes. Lot of 4th liners play tough minutes. They get a lot of defensive zone starts/pk and depending on team some will some shift against the top line. Kruger was a 4th line with the hawks. He takes a lot of defensive zone faceoffs so Toews get more offensive zone starts. Since you are a fan Ronning I think you watched 1994 playoffs. The 4th line of Antoski McIntyre Hunter played against the Messier line in the finals.

 

[Canucks1096]

I take it you are a JB Investment Fund customer.

Why? Just a friendly reminder the debate is not about is Benning doing a good job. Its turned into are Canucks Rebuilding or not Rebuilding? I think they are rebuilding but it doesn't mean I think he doing an excellent job.

 

[Lindgren]

I think the Canucks have been rebuilding for several years now.

The only reason for the controversy is that the rebuild is so inept that it's difficult to identify it as such.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I think the Canucks have been rebuilding for several years now.

The only reason for the controversy is that the rebuild is so inept that it's difficult to identify it as such.

Has Benning rebuilt the team? Absolutely. There are...what, 2 players left over from before he took over? 3? It's just that the team he's built or rebuilt sucks, and looks to suck for the foreseeable future.

It's defining "rebuild" as in: "make the Canucks a good team again using different players than we started with" is when it falls down. Sure, Linden and Benning have rebuilt the team. Just not into a good one.

 

[Canucks1096]

Okay. if you can't see the connection I've been trying to make that more picks = more chances at prospects then I don't know what to tell you. It's basically the entire reason GMs like to get as many as possible, especially if their team's in the dumpster and they want to get out of it.



How long is it you think prospects need to get ready? Are you another one who's been fooled into thinking that prospects are usually just dipping their toes in the NHL at 22 or 23? They don't. That's not typical for good ones. What Boeser did last year is actually far more typical of what good prospects really do if you look around the NHL. Players worth building teams around don't spend years bumbling around lesser leagues after their draft years. They hit early and hard. The fact we're still waiting tells me there aren't enough good prospects in the pipes to build around, and the lack of draft picks is a big part of why.



*sigh* No, I am not saying Benning is great at drafting. I used those players as an example of what he can get if he actually tries to draft instead of losing picks for other teams' failed garbage prospects. Maybe they become nothing. But it's better we spend picks hoping for upside instead of trading them for players whose upside has already failed to materialize.



Uh...have you noticed those trades haven't produced good players for us? That's just kinda why I've been telling you they're not good moves for us. Yeah, if Vey turned into a good player it wouldn't be a bad deal. But he didn't. Neither did Pedan, Pouliot, Etem...once again, the best deal Benning's done that way is for Baertschi. Not sure why you overlook that detail.

Yeah, if trading picks for older prospects had produced good players, it would be a valid rebuilding tactic. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

---------------------------------------

And as for why money and cap space matter, it's because they give you options. If you have cap space to spare, you don't have to carefully balance incoming and outgoing salaries when you consider trades. If there's a big money guy on another team who becomes available for one reason or another, you have cap space to do that. You have to option to trade with teams that need to shed salary. That gives you a bit of leverage...well, usually. Somehow Benning solved the Pens' cap problems for them and paid them with an extra dman and a higher draft pick. But what competent GMs typically do is offer to take problem contracts if sweeteners such as picks or young players are thrown in.

Not here, obviously.

Yes I get that more picks equals more prospects. But the original argument was I said he need to sign a lot of stop gap players because prospects are not ready. Then you came back with he need to sign those stop gap players because he keeps trading picks. Now I am saying that is not true because as of right now not even one player outside of the 1st round that is on the roster right now. So pretend if he didn't trade a 2nd 2nd 3rd 4th 5th for Baer Vey Pedan Pouliot Larsen, If kept those picks chances are he might have one more young player on the roster now and that's it. Do you get what I am saying now? If he kept those 5 picks or traded. There still wouldn't be much draft picks playing on the roster now.

Yes trading those picks didn't produce results. But it's kind of like what you said you get more drafts pick so better chance in getting a good player. Most picks will not be making any impact. Its the same with trading for a struggling young players there is a chance he can become good player but most of them won't make an impact.

You got me confuse again. The debate is Are Canucks Rebuilding. You wrote if trading a picks produce a good player than its a good rebuilding tactic. So are we debating about the action the Canucks are taking or the results? Pretend if Canucks traded for 20 picks and none of them worked out. Does that mean the Canucks are not rebuilding because the action didn't lead any results. Base on what you said if it produces a good player, it's a good rebuilding tactic.

Also your argument that Canucks could of drafted a Lind Gadjovich and Woo tupe of player with those traded picks. But how do you know if those players would be better than the Baer and Vey?

I will be honest, I think you are getting a little confuse on what an actual rebuild is

Anyway we will agree to disagree.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Yes I get that more picks equals more prospects. But the original argument was I said he need to sign a lot of stop gap players because prospects are not ready. Then you came back with he need to sign those stop gap players because he keeps trading picks. Now I am saying that is not true because as of right now not even one player outside of the 1st round that is on the roster right now. So pretend if he didn't trade a 2nd 2nd 3rd 4th 5th for Baer Vey Pedan Pouliot Larsen, If kept those picks chances are he might have one more young player on the roster now and that's it. Do you get what I am saying now? If he kept those 5 picks or traded. There still wouldn't be much draft picks playing on the roster now.

Yes trading those picks didn't produce results. But it's kind of like what you said you get more drafts pick so better chance in getting a good player. Most picks will not be making any impact. Its the same with trading for a struggling young players there is a chance he can become good player but most of them won't make an impact.

You got me confuse again. The debate is Are Canucks Rebuilding. You wrote if trading a picks produce a good player than its a good rebuilding tactic. So are we debating about the action the Canucks are taking or the results? Pretend if Canucks traded for 20 picks and none of them worked out. Does that mean the Canucks are not rebuilding because the action didn't lead any results. Base on what you said if it produces a good player, it's a good rebuilding tactic.

Also your argument that Canucks could of drafted a Lind Gadjovich and Woo tupe of player with those traded picks. But how do you know if those players would be better than the Baer and Vey?

I will be honest, I think you are getting a little confuse on what an actual rebuild is

Anyway we will agree to disagree.

Yeah, this is getting away from the thread topic so I'll wrap up this discussion after this.

I know exactly what you're saying. I knew the first time you said it. We've had this exact argument before in different threads, and we're still at it. You're still massively underrating what Benning would and should be getting through the draft had he actually tried to do anything close to a genuine rebuild. I continue to be amazed how low the bar you're giving Benning regarding his drafting. I have no idea how long you think rebuilding an NHL team should take.

If the Canucks traded for 20 picks and none of them worked out then I'd say dear holy f***ing shit, who do you have scouting, a team of monkeys?

You continue to act as though there's no difference in the chance of the picks yielding good players vis a vis drafting or trading. I think results have been pretty conclusive so far. Acting like players who have already failed to develop on another NHL team have just the same chance of success as players just drafted is a false equivalence. These things are not the same. The proof has been on the ice for all to see.

Anyway, there it is. I'll leave off there.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Makes no sense.

So Peterson centres the 2nd line with .... Erikson and Gagner on his wings ??

Yeah , that’s a position to succeed.

Another thing I want to say is so many of you had said with Beagle and Rousell signing Canucks are not rebuilding. This signings actually shows the Canucks are rebuilding. The prospects the Canucks have are Potential scorer and not checkers. So in free agent Canucks decided not to go after Neal, Stastny, and they went checkers instead. ask yourself Why? Because they want give the offensive minutes, top lines, offensive zone starts ppp to the younger players. The checkers get tough mins and young players get the easier mins

All this talk with Sutter playing Pettersson is nonsense. It's not going to happen. They may try in training camp but Green will know after the game is not going to work. Pettersson most likely will play center

 

[Bleach Clean]

Sutter has similiar Defensive zone starts and still manage 26 points. I like the fact you were just cherry picking last season. What about the year before he had 40% offensive starts which is common for 3rd/4th lines and manage 5 A the whole season. Schaller Beagle and Rousell are proven to get at least 20 to 25 points a season. They get anywhere from 30 to 40% offensive zone starts. I would be very surprised that Gaunce can get to that level.

I really don't think Canucks are even that high on Gaunce. They did leave him in the expansion draft.

Was Gaunce that effective in his role. Read below

Brendan Gaunce is Struggling Under a Tougher Defensive Load

You are thinking like its 1985 right now. It or 2018. 4th line players are not just players than can play a few mins a game and are liability on the ice. Lot of teams roll 4 lines. The lines name 1st 2nd 3rd 4th are usually measure on offence. The 4th line doesn't have much offence and that's why it's called a 4th line. It doesn't mean that line can't play tough minutes. Lot of 4th liners play tough minutes. They get a lot of defensive zone starts/pk and depending on team some will some shift against the top line. Kruger was a 4th line with the hawks. He takes a lot of defensive zone faceoffs so Toews get more offensive zone starts. Since you are a fan Ronning I think you watched 1994 playoffs. The 4th line of Antoski McIntyre Hunter played against the Messier line in the finals.

A 4th liner cannot shelter anything but other 4th liners. If he could, he would be a 3rd liner, or a 2nd liner etc... This understanding takes into account Quality of Competition, Quality of Teammates and Zone Starts. In other words, put Beagle in exactly the same minutes as Gaunce, and he produces similar to Gaunce, Why? Because the opportunity to produce more simply isn’t there. If Beagle could, then he’d be a significant step up on other 4th liners (He’s not).

If you don’t understand that Beagle’s output will be adversely affected by more than just zone starts, then you don’t understand possession.

Gaunce is very underrated in what he does. Even so, he’s a 4th liner. So are Beagle, Roussel and Schaller. Gaunce wasn’t able to shelter the players ahead of him, even though he played some of the most difficult minutes in the league. The same will be true in principle for the new 4th line. Only, it wouldn’t have cost the team 8~ million AAV to find out.

 

[Canucks1096]

A 4th liner cannot shelter anything but other 4th liners. If he could, he would be a 3rd liner, or a 2nd liner etc... This understanding takes into account Quality of Competition, Quality of Teammates and Zone Starts. In other words, put Beagle in exactly the same minutes as Gaunce, and he produces similar to Gaunce, Why? Because the opportunity to produce more simply isn’t there. If Beagle could, then he’d be a significant step up on other 4th liners (He’s not).

If you don’t understand that Beagle’s output will be adversely affected by more than just zone starts, then you don’t understand possession.

Gaunce is very underrated in what he does. Even so, he’s a 4th liner. So are Beagle, Roussel and Schaller. Gaunce wasn’t able to shelter the players ahead of him, even though he played some of the most difficult minutes in the league. The same will be true in principle for the new 4th line. Only, it wouldn’t have cost the team 8~ million AAV to find out.

I think you are generalizing a lot.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Let's try this one more time. As of right now there are 2 full time players that was drafted by Benning from 2014 to 2017 that's on the roster. Why because the players are not ready yet. So if Benning didn't trade those picks for young players he would of had 5 more picks. Considering the fact as of right now he got 2 nhl players out of around 28 picks so far that's on the roster. It is more than fair to say he would have 1 more nhl player on the roster if he didn't trade those 5 picks. Saying 1 is actually generous Because there is no player outside of the 1st round that is on the roster now. That's why Benning need to sign those Vets because the prospects are not ready. I really believe because Benning signing Vets is tricking you guys into think he is not rebuilding. If prospects not ready he needs to fill the roster. Common sense.

I think you were a little bit confuse on my point about the 5 draft picks he traded. I am not saying if he kept those picks there only 1 future nhl player. I am saying there only would be 1 on the current roster because those prospects won't be ready.

I will be honest the debate a getting a little confusing.

You are kind all over the map. One argument you indicating to me that Benning is great drafting with the Lind Gadjovich Woo. Another argument you indicating he is not good at getting young players and that's why he can't build a good core.

Benning traded that 2nd for Sutter but got a 3rd back. That 2nd for Garrison went to Vey. I think it actually the outcome that is making you think it is not a rebuild. Pretend Vey turned into a good player. Everyone would think it's a good rebuilding move becuase they got a good player. But we are have a Debate about the action of a rebuild and not having a debate about the results. I am actually ok with those type of trades. Hawks got lucky on getting a Sharp for a 3rd pick when Sharp was struggling with the Flyers.

The mental gymnastics you are forced to do to stick to your opinnion... I feel for you buddy.