The Rebuild Started...

[Canucks1096]

Yes, they do need to fill a full roster; however, they don't need to give out multi-year deals to veterans. There is such a thing as signing vets to 1-year deals and looking to flip them at the deadline. Stepping away from the Canucks sphere for a few days, and coming back thinking about the 4 year deals given to Roussel and Beagle...it really is as bad as people say it is.

I've already listed players that didn't get chances because of veterans. Stecher probably being the best example as he only got in because of injury. Though I suppose the lack of a huge push of youth is a testament to how non-existent this rebuild has been.

Lack was traded in 2015, not 2016. It was also the trade that Benning chose to do instead of moving Ryan Miller for the 9th overall pick at that draft.

Yes, Benning wanted prospects instead for Hansen and Burrows. Why? Because this isn't a rebuild and Benning is instead trying to retool around some younger players and try to turn the team around quickly. Remember, when he first arrived here he said this is a team he can turn around quickly. He's been attempting to do so every year, but has failed miserably. That's what this is about.

Benning could have traded Hamhuis to Chicago for Dano and a 1st round pick but because he was still indecisive as to whether he was going to sell or hold to push for the playoffs, Chicago moved on. He started the trade process with Hamhuis way too late that Hamhuis didn't have enough time to consider different landing spots.

Who gave Vrbata that NTC?

It's Benning's fault that he's targeted players instead of draft picks in the deals he has made.

To say this is a rebuild is ridiculous because it ignores all the facts, and ignores what a rebuild actually is. It's a half-assed retool around current NHL players.



Partially true. But you're ignoring that they had some great prospects they got from those 1st overall picks. That alone put their prospect pool back then ahead of what the Canucks have now.

You seem to forgetting it does take two to tango. If you were an ufa would you sign a 1 year deal and play for a bad team? There has to some incentive to play on a rebuilding team.

Sorry I think missed that. What players didn't get a chance because of Vets? Back to Stecher, yes his play was good enough to make the opening night roster. Yes he got called up because of injuries but the fact is when they saw Stecher play more they realize he was a real deal and he didn't get sent down when Tanev came back. Larsen and Biega were healthy scratches which peove Stecher did earn that spot and wasn't because injuries anymore that he was on the roster.

Sorry my mistake on Lack. That was 2015. Canucks were just coming out of a 100 points season. You don't rebuild, after that 100 points season. They realize they were not a 100 point then they started to rebuild.

Send me the rule book or any evidences that indicates trading Vets for prospects is not rebuilding. Dahlen was only in his draft + 1 year.

It seem like we are having 2 different debates. The debate is if Canucks are rebuilding but the way you are debating is seem like we are debating if Benning is good GM. I won't say he is a bad GM but did make some bad moves. But we are debating about the action. The fact is he did try to trade Hamhuis for Hawks 1st but the Hawks 1st wasn't available anymore because it was traded for Ladd. In this debate the results doesn't matter because we are debating the action. So Benning did try to take action and trade Hamhuis for a 1st but he screwed up because he waited too long. Him screwing up is a completely different story.

Pretend if Benning traded some Vets for draft picks and those draft picks turned into the bust. Does that mean those were not rebuilding because he did take action but got no results?

Since the deadline of 2016/2017. The players that he signed are stop gap players or checkers to take some hard mins from the kids. He didn't sign big ufa to be part of the core.

Yes it is partly true for the Oilers. That's why I said it's one of the reason. Also that's why they didn't draft well aside from their 1st round pick.


Anyway we will agree to disagree. Some of arguments we are having two different debates.

 

[arttk]

True but the original argument you made was Stecher is on the roster because of injuries. Biega and Larsen were healthy scratches which proves Stecher wasn't on the roster just because of injuries.

Biega is not even a roster player, he only gets called up when there are too many injuries. I don’t remember Larsen being healthy scratched until he came by from his injuries. He played all of Oct and then missed games in Nov, but then Tanev missed all of Nov and most of Dec.
I mean just look at the game logs, we were Bascially missing Edler, Tanev, Gubranson all at different times which gave opportunities to Stecher and Tryamkin.
The way the D was constructed in 16 is very different than how the forwards are constructed this year. We had like 4 established NHL dman and a bunch of rookies and journeyman. Stecher earned a job at training camp and then he didn’t even make the lineup until all the injuries stacked up. Stecher didn’t have to compete with guys that had long term contracts.
All the forward rookies we have have to compete with established NHL vets that are signed to like 2-4 years. That’s the problem.

 

[me2]

Yes. The logic was Sutter and Eriksson were better rebuilding options. The former to protect young players from tough minutes and the latter to relieve some of the pressure on the young players to generate offence. Yes I’m aware that Ericsson hasn’t played up to his contract yet but that doesn’t invalidate the logic behind the signing.

Complete bullshit, just awful logic. Sutter and Eriksson were pure retooling moves to get Jimbo back into the playoffs.

1. Sutter was made after the 2015 playoffs. He was supposed to help improve the Canucks playoffs performance over Bonino, the team even gave up futures in the deal.

2. Jimbo tried to trade for Lucic at the 2015 draft, see improving a playoff team. (goodbye rebuilding futures in that trade).

3. Jim tried to sign lucic in 2016 to get back to playoffs after missing, he was not trying to rebuild.

4. He offered 5th overall + for Subban. To get back to the playoffs he wanted to sell futures.

5. Eriksson was a fallback because Jimbo missed out on Lucic in 2015 and again in 2016. It was about returning to the playoffs.

Same arguments for guys like Gudbranson. Immediate fix, not a long term rebuilding move. He traded futures and prospects.


The only reason they are talking rebuild is to cover their asses, the team is so badly run it is going to be brutal. They have no other option but to try and spin their incompetence as a rebuild.

 

[Canucks1096]

Biega is not even a roster player, he only gets called up when there are too many injuries. I don’t remember Larsen being healthy scratched until he came by from his injuries. He played all of Oct and then missed games in Nov, but then Tanev missed all of Nov and most of Dec.
I mean just look at the game logs, we were Bascially missing Edler, Tanev, Gubranson all at different times which gave opportunities to Stecher and Tryamkin.
The way the D was constructed in 16 is very different than how the forwards are constructed this year. We had like 4 established NHL dman and a bunch of rookies and journeyman. Stecher earned a job at training camp and then he didn’t even make the lineup until all the injuries stacked up. Stecher didn’t have to compete with guys that had long term contracts.
All the forward rookies we have have to compete with established NHL vets that are signed to like 2-4 years. That’s the problem.

Recent news on Philip Larsen - Vancouver Canucks - Rotoworld.com

Nov 10, 13, 17, 19 Biega and Larsen both were healthy scratches. That means Stecher wasn't on the team anymore because of injuries. He played ahead 2 Defensemen that was on the roster for the full season. No matter how you guys try to spin it if Stecher played ahead of 2 D that was on the nhl roster for the full season. That means he wasnt on the team anymore because of injuries. Agree?

Biega has only played in one ahl game the Last 3 years. He might not been a regular spot in the lineup but he is on the nhl roster.

Tell me the last 4 years which young forward was good enough to make the team that didn't because of a Vet? I asked this question many times but the only answer was Stecher which is not really true. Once Stecher prove he was read deal he got his roster spot

The funny thing is in the Virtanen thread people are saying Canucks rushed him in the nhl. He should of been sent back to chl. Now on this thread users are complaining there not giving enough roster spot to younger players.

 

[Shareefruck]

It's probably Auto correct on IPhone or Android.

I once said when someone disagree with another user. They must correct the spelling as well. If you agree with that person, you probably wouldn't even bother correcting them.

C'mon. You're kidding yourself if you think that people would just ignore "Bo Horgan" if they agreed with that person. Egregious spelling/grammar is difficult to ignore either way.

 

[Hit the post]

Even without those signings. Pettersson if he playing wing still needs a center to play with
Sutter might still be an option as well.

Jeebus, it's tough enough breaking in the league, why burden the kid being stuck with Sutter as his center?

 

[Canucks1096]

Hutton,Stecher,Boeser,and Virtanen (this season) all legitimately earned a spot on the Canucks...There's no proof to suggest they've blocked any prospects that earned a spot.

Benning has stated more than once.. "If a prospect is ready to play,we will make room for him"...He will be held to that.

It's just a myth that these Vets are blocking prospects. Lot of Canucks fans believe in myths and generalizations.

 

[Canucks1096]

Complete bull****, juwt awful logic. Sutter and Eriksson were pure retooling moves to get Jimbo back into the playoffs.

1. Sutter was made after the 2015 playoffs. He was supposed to help improve the Canucks playoffs performance over Bonino, the team even gave up futures in the deal.

2. Jimbo tried to trade for Lucic at the 2015 draft, see improving a playoff team. (goodbye rebuilding futures in that trade).

3. Jim tried to sign lucic in 2016 to get back to playoffs after missing, he was not trying to rebuild.

4. He offered 5th overall + for Subban. To get back to the playoffs he wanted to sell futures.

5. Eriksson was a fallback because Jimbo missed out on Lucic in 2015 and again in 2016. It was about returning to the playoffs.

Same arguments for guys like Gudbranson. Immediate fix, not a long term rebuilding move. He traded futures and prospects.


The only reason they are talking rebuild is to cover their asses, the team is so badly run it is going to be brutal. They have no other option but to try and spin their incompetence as a rebuild.

Why are you examples in 2015 and 2016 and not 2017 and 2018. Is it because 2017 and 2018 he stopped going after the big fish and he stopped going for a quick fix? If he stopped going for the big fish and quick fix. Isn't that sign of a rebuild?

Most people when they debate and not just hockey. They would think of something current examples to use an argument but you decided use example 3 or 4 years instead.

 

[me2]

It's just a myth that these Vets are blocking prospects. Lot of Canucks fans believe in myths and generalizations.

If they didn't Jim wouldn't have a job.

 

[me2]

Why are you examples in 2015 and 2016 and not 2017 and 2018. Is it because 2017 and 2018 he stopped going after the big fish and he stopped going for a quick fix? If he stopped going for the big fish and quick fix. Isn't that sign of a rebuild?

Most people when they debate and not just hockey. They would think of something current examples to use an argument but you decided use example 3 or 4 years instead.

2017 he ran out of money.

2018 he had no other options. It happened in spite of him not because they planned it.

Two guys buy a vintage car, let's call one Jim.

First guy gets asked if he be racing it, he says "No, best thing to do is strip it down and rebuild it. It needs it".

Jim says "Nah, I'm racing mine. A few quick changes of tires and oil and that's all. Don't know what the other guy is on about". Soon jim starts racing and the old car can't handle it and
crashes badly and wrecked. They tow it back to the garage and strip it down to try to salvage some parts. Jim's friend comes by and sees the car it bits and asks what happened and Jim replies "rebuilding as planned".

 

[RandV]

2017 he ran out of money.

2018 he had no other options. It happened in spite of him not because they planned it.

It also highlights our gradual descent into irrelevancy.

Year 1 he got Miller and Vrbata
Year 2 it was Eriksson
Year 3 we're down to Gagner, Del Zotto, and a last minute Vanek
Year 4 we're overpaying we're down to severely overpaying to secure 4th liners Beagle and Roussel.

Notice how a lot of Benning defence this summer was along the lines of 'well you have to overpay to get guys to play in Vancouver'.

I mean we can't even sign the Vrbata's or Eriksson's anymore, damn you Gillis!!!

 

[The Drop]

Complete bull****, just awful logic. Sutter and Eriksson were pure retooling moves to get Jimbo back into the playoffs.

1. Sutter was made after the 2015 playoffs. He was supposed to help improve the Canucks playoffs performance over Bonino, the team even gave up futures in the deal.

2. Jimbo tried to trade for Lucic at the 2015 draft, see improving a playoff team. (goodbye rebuilding futures in that trade).

3. Jim tried to sign lucic in 2016 to get back to playoffs after missing, he was not trying to rebuild.

4. He offered 5th overall + for Subban. To get back to the playoffs he wanted to sell futures.

5. Eriksson was a fallback because Jimbo missed out on Lucic in 2015 and again in 2016. It was about returning to the playoffs.

Same arguments for guys like Gudbranson. Immediate fix, not a long term rebuilding move. He traded futures and prospects.


The only reason they are talking rebuild is to cover their asses, the team is so badly run it is going to be brutal. They have no other option but to try and spin their incompetence as a rebuild.

And they're STILL not rebuilding. The Rangers in the span of 6 months did more of a rebuild than the Benning run canucks ever have.



It's the same old mess. About the only thing saving us from that idiot shopping the 1st is that the draft is here next year.


This franchise is a joke.

 

[y2kcanucks]

You seem to forgetting it does take two to tango. If you were an ufa would you sign a 1 year deal and play for a bad team? There has to some incentive to play on a rebuilding team.

Absolutely. Especially if that team was offering me a lot more money than other teams, and perhaps I was a UFA who wasn't highly sought after. But no, you keep thinking that players like Brodziak, Duclair, Ennis, etc. would prefer to sign for peanuts than sign for a couple million on a one year deal. Or you keep thinking that players like Andrew Cogliano would prefer to risk not playing next year than to come to Vancouver. It's incredibly naive but does kind of explain your pro-Benning narrative.

Sorry I think missed that. What players didn't get a chance because of Vets? Back to Stecher, yes his play was good enough to make the opening night roster. Yes he got called up because of injuries but the fact is when they saw Stecher play more they realize he was a real deal and he didn't get sent down when Tanev came back. Larsen and Biega were healthy scratches which peove Stecher did earn that spot and wasn't because injuries anymore that he was on the roster.

Except you ignore the fact that Stecher played well enough in pre-season to earn a spot but was still sent down. If there were no injuries he would have remained in the AHL. That's the problem.

Sorry my mistake on Lack. That was 2015. Canucks were just coming out of a 100 points season. You don't rebuild, after that 100 points season. They realize they were not a 100 point then they started to rebuild.

They were coming off a season where they were backstopped to the playoffs by stellar goaltending from Eddie Lack. Funny though, despite that 100 point season I accurately predicted they wouldn't make the playoffs. It was obvious that team wasn't very good.

Send me the rule book or any evidences that indicates trading Vets for prospects is not rebuilding. Dahlen was only in his draft + 1 year.

The Dahlen trade was probably the only good trade Benning has made that he didn't subsequently f*** up. You're welcome to think that trading Hansen for Goldobin was a rebuilding move, even though Benning himself said he wouldn't have done that deal if it weren't for the upcoming expansion draft. Ignorance is bliss.

It seem like we are having 2 different debates. The debate is if Canucks are rebuilding but the way you are debating is seem like we are debating if Benning is good GM. I won't say he is a bad GM but did make some bad moves. But we are debating about the action. The fact is he did try to trade Hamhuis for Hawks 1st but the Hawks 1st wasn't available anymore because it was traded for Ladd. In this debate the results doesn't matter because we are debating the action. So Benning did try to take action and trade Hamhuis for a 1st but he screwed up because he waited too long. Him screwing up is a completely different story.

What are you even saying? Are you seriously suggesting that Benning called Chicago and asked for their 1st not knowing that they had already traded it for Ladd? Chicago made that offer. That doesn't make Benning a good GM because he didn't accept it (and somehow you deem this to be him trying to acquire it).

Benning screwed up completely. That makes him a bad GM because he should have known the team he had wasn't good enough to make the playoffs that year, and he should have been better prepared. This isn't rocket science. You're just going out of your way to make up excuses for him. It's quite sad. That's like saying "well that's a good pilot. Yeah he crashed the plane, but the action is that he tried to fly it safely."

Pretend if Benning traded some Vets for draft picks and those draft picks turned into the bust. Does that mean those were not rebuilding because he did take action but got no results?

We have to pretend because Benning doesn't do this.

Nobody is expecting every draft pick to hit, but the act of stockpiling draft picks means your odds of hitting on one or more of those picks is higher. That's how you rebuild. You don't seem to understand this simple concept which is why we're not getting anywhere.

Since the deadline of 2016/2017. The players that he signed are stop gap players or checkers to take some hard mins from the kids. He didn't sign big ufa to be part of the core.

Yes it is partly true for the Oilers. That's why I said it's one of the reason. Also that's why they didn't draft well aside from their 1st round pick.


Anyway we will agree to disagree. Some of arguments we are having two different debates.

3 and 4 year contracts are not "stop gap" contracts.

It's not a matter of agreeing to disagree. It's a matter of you ignoring reality.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Why are you examples in 2015 and 2016 and not 2017 and 2018. Is it because 2017 and 2018 he stopped going after the big fish and he stopped going for a quick fix? If he stopped going for the big fish and quick fix. Isn't that sign of a rebuild?

Most people when they debate and not just hockey. They would think of something current examples to use an argument but you decided use example 3 or 4 years instead.

It takes two to tango. You dont know he didint try to go after the big fish. (See what I did there)

This summer there was no sign of a rebuild. We signed other teams 4th liner free agents to term and money that will be untradeable for ~3 years.

We should have stayed put at the "frenzy" and looked for the Vaneks of this year that are left. Those are the guys that are more inclined to sign for the one year contracts that we should be looking for at this point.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Nobody is expecting every draft pick to hit, but the act of stockpiling draft picks means your odds of hitting on one or more of those picks is higher. That's how you rebuild. You don't seem to understand this simple concept which is why we're not getting anywhere.

He doesn't. He really, really doesn't. You just end up going in circles when you try to talk about this point to that user because he just can't get that.

 

[Canucks1096]

Absolutely. Especially if that team was offering me a lot more money than other teams, and perhaps I was a UFA who wasn't highly sought after. But no, you keep thinking that players like Brodziak, Duclair, Ennis, etc. would prefer to sign for peanuts than sign for a couple million on a one year deal. Or you keep thinking that players like Andrew Cogliano would prefer to risk not playing next year than to come to Vancouver. It's incredibly naive but does kind of explain your pro-Benning narrative.




Except you ignore the fact that Stecher played well enough in pre-season to earn a spot but was still sent down. If there were no injuries he would have remained in the AHL. That's the problem.



They were coming off a season where they were backstopped to the playoffs by stellar goaltending from Eddie Lack. Funny though, despite that 100 point season I accurately predicted they wouldn't make the playoffs. It was obvious that team wasn't very good.



The Dahlen trade was probably the only good trade Benning has made that he didn't subsequently **** up. You're welcome to think that trading Hansen for Goldobin was a rebuilding move, even though Benning himself said he wouldn't have done that deal if it weren't for the upcoming expansion draft. Ignorance is bliss.



What are you even saying? Are you seriously suggesting that Benning called Chicago and asked for their 1st not knowing that they had already traded it for Ladd? Chicago made that offer. That doesn't make Benning a good GM because he didn't accept it (and somehow you deem this to be him trying to acquire it).

Benning screwed up completely. That makes him a bad GM because he should have known the team he had wasn't good enough to make the playoffs that year, and he should have been better prepared. This isn't rocket science. You're just going out of your way to make up excuses for him. It's quite sad. That's like saying "well that's a good pilot. Yeah he crashed the plane, but the action is that he tried to fly it safely."



We have to pretend because Benning doesn't do this.

Nobody is expecting every draft pick to hit, but the act of stockpiling draft picks means your odds of hitting on one or more of those picks is higher. That's how you rebuild. You don't seem to understand this simple concept which is why we're not getting anywhere.



3 and 4 year contracts are not "stop gap" contracts.

It's not a matter of agreeing to disagree. It's a matter of you ignoring reality.

About those 1 yr contract. Me and you don't know if Benning even offered those players one year contract. An educated guess shouldn't be use as an argument.

There has to be injuries, the fact is when Stecher got called up he was still ahead of a Defensemen that was on the roster. Which proves that even though he was in the AHL, he was still ahead of the depth chart. So the plan was for Stecher to get some games. Before you were saying that all these Vets were blocking on these prospects. Can you name some more? If you can't nane more, that just proves you were generalizing

Canucks were 6th in goals in 2015. I think you are generalizing again if you Think it was only Lack because we got in the playoffs. Canucks also had second most players with 10 or more goals in the league.

You are not understanding my point. The fact you and other users are looking at results to determine if it we rebuilding or not. So if those draft picks dont work out according to your analogy that means is not a rebuild. Do you understand my point now?

Like I said we are having two different debates. Your debating about the results. I am debating about the action.

So Benning didn't pull the trigger on Hamhuis trade fast enough so I should think he is bad a GM. But you said you like Dahlen trade. That means he is a good GM? At the end Benning wanted to make a trade that considered a rebuild instead of just offering big bucks to Hamhuis. Even Benning screwed up the intent he wantrd to Make a rebuild move

I think issue is you have this generalization in your head that is a rebuild that must have all these younger players can't sign a player more than a few years. It doesnt have to be like that.

Don't forgot I never said he was doing a good job on the rebuilding. I just said he is rebuilding

 

[Peter10]

I just said he is rebuilding

He thinks he is rebuilding - from March (when the trade deadline has passed) until the draft is over. Then from July first the "competing" starts again, early in the season its playoff contention until the unavoidable fall back to reality slowy sets in, starting about february or so...

 

[y2kcanucks]

About those 1 yr contract. Me and you don't know if Benning even offered those players one year contract. An educated guess shouldn't be use as an argument.

Yet you seem to use guesses a lot in your analysis.

I think it's a lot more plausible that Benning didn't offer 1-year contracts to players like Tyler Ennis, for $2M per year for example, than it is to suggest Ennis rejected that and took a 1-year deal for the league minimum with Toronto.

There has to be injuries, the fact is when Stecher got called up he was still ahead of a Defensemen that was on the roster. Which proves that even though he was in the AHL, he was still ahead of the depth chart. So the plan was for Stecher to get some games. Before you were saying that all these Vets were blocking on these prospects. Can you name some more? If you can't nane more, that just proves you were generalizing

Again you're ignoring reality here. The reality is that Stecher was sent down. Twice.

Canucks were 6th in goals in 2015. I think you are generalizing again if you Think it was only Lack because we got in the playoffs. Canucks also had second most players with 10 or more goals in the league.

The Canucks were only 3 points in a playoff spot at the time Miller got injured. I'm not generalizing anything. Lack came in and played a key role in the Canucks making the playoffs. Stop ignoring reality to serve your own narrative.

You are not understanding my point. The fact you and other users are looking at results to determine if it we rebuilding or not. So if those draft picks dont work out according to your analogy that means is not a rebuild. Do you understand my point now?

I understand your point fully. What you're trying to argue is pure nonsense. I never said if those draft picks don't work out that we aren't in a rebuild. Of course we would be in a rebuild. The ACT of stockpiling draft picks means the team is rebuilding. I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here.

Like I said we are having two different debates. Your debating about the results. I am debating about the action.

You're not really debating anything. You're just trying to throw words together to defend Benning while ignoring reality and logic completely.

So Benning didn't pull the trigger on Hamhuis trade fast enough so I should think he is bad a GM. But you said you like Dahlen trade. That means he is a good GM? At the end Benning wanted to make a trade that considered a rebuild instead of just offering big bucks to Hamhuis. Even Benning screwed up the intent he wantrd to Make a rebuild move

One good trade among all of his blunders does not mean he's a good GM. Just because he "wanted" to make a good move doesn't mean he made a good move, nor does it mean he has a plan to rebuild. Plus, what was it you said above? "An educated guess shouldn't be an argument." How do you know that Benning wanted to trade Hamhuis? Did he trade him? No. So you're just making an educated guess because it's convenient for you here. Even though the reality is he failed and you're still trying to spin this into some kind of positive.

I think issue is you have this generalization in your head that is a rebuild that must have all these younger players can't sign a player more than a few years. It doesnt have to be like that.

Don't forgot I never said he was doing a good job on the rebuilding. I just said he is rebuilding

I think the issue you have is complete ignorance to how successful rebuilds are actually completed.

 

[Trelane]

This business of having excess picks as requisite for a rebuilt is interesting. Many think it gospel yet the evidence is lacking or inconclusive at best. In the ten years prior to our runs in 94 and 11 the Canucks averaged LESS than full compliment. Ditto the Bruins in the ten years prior to 2011. The Wings in all the years prior to the 3 championships were around the allotted number. Of course,they ditched so many 1st rounders and made the numbers up with 7 to 12 round picks as to render it even more pointless.

Of the modern quasi dynasties (Pens, Kings, Hawks) only the last two did what the majority here take as sine qua non for rebuilding. Pens were about average. But we’re talking cores made up of Crosby, Malkin, Doughty, Kopitar, Toews and Kane (three 1OA, two top 3OA, and one top 10). Does anybody really think those outfits win Jack without said players? Championship caliber cores are built overwhelmingly with teams own early 1sts. Hit on a few in about a 5 years succession on you’re set. Hoarding mid to late picks is optional!

Been watching the Nucks since 89 playoffs and paid close attention to drafts and prospects since 1990 and I can categorically confirm that this is the best prospect pool we ever had, high end and depth. All while averaging 6.75 (or whatever) picks per year. Weird.

Who can say if anything will come of it. Won’t know for years. Horvat, the first of that 2013-18 cohort, has ways to go before he’s an elite two-way force. Got slaughtered for most of his first three years. Faster progression from still newer picks would be nice but it’s not realistic. Putting up points and not being scored on seldom goes together early in players careers. Hence the poor standings.

Rebuild started in 15-16, or when it became obvious that the old (Burkie-Nonis) core was spent, that the prior year was a blip, and that picking early instead of making playoffs would be our lot for a few years. Aquaman’s 2017 trade deadline “the tear-down starts now” tweet is also a reasonable date.

 

[Trelane]

“Rebuilds take ten years” -Holland. I’m sure we can all do the math. Assuming he’s talking championship caliber. Playoffs should come sooner. How much sooner?

Consider Chevy’s Jets. He was an exec of the year finalist in this his 7nth year. First time the club was elite. Missed the playoffs 5/6 years prior. By that reckoning our current regime should get 3 more years. Of course they were dealt a very different hand. 1) No Wheeler, Byfuglien, Little and Kane/Myers equivalents on the Nucks roster, guys in their early to mid 20s who are still front line players now that they entered their window seven years later! 2) Nor do we win lotteries and get 1OA level talent with the 2nd pick in Laine.

A year or two should be added to our competitive timeline to offset the above if we want to be equitable about it. This is not being a Benning apologist, it’s being a realist - honest appraisal of the time needed to execute a wholesale rebuilt. Now, it’s very possible that the current regime doesn’t have it in them to build a competitive squad. If so I’ve no issue with them being turfed, but, again, the time needs to be realistic for the job at hand.


Can’t get much invested in the crying stemming from free agency either. To be sure the contracts suck, both term and quantum. It will become an issue only if legit prospects are being blocked long term. Kid killing at the A and being made to wait a couple months before a slot frees up in the show does not qualify. Seeing as there are 1-2 positions for a top 6 role with favorable zone starts and likely some PP time--in addition to the one being gifted to Pettersson--I’m not seeing the injustice befalling our prospects. Might actually be too good for them. Kess and Burr toiled on our bottom 6 for years.

Other related:
EP, Boeser, etc. can activate God mode in October and we’d have no issue resigning them once the ELCs are up.

Greener doesn’t strike as being married to his vets concerning icetime and roles. Erickson, Granlund, Bae, Gagner and even Virtanen all played up and down the line up.

Gaunce, Motte, Leipsic, Goldobin, or even Hutton for that matter, being waived and possibly picked up is the least of it. Nothing wrong with the Seahawks model of rotating players in a short time to see what they got. They had their chance.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Just gonna leave this here...

 

[arttk]

Recent news on Philip Larsen - Vancouver Canucks - Rotoworld.com

Nov 10, 13, 17, 19 Biega and Larsen both were healthy scratches. That means Stecher wasn't on the team anymore because of injuries. He played ahead 2 Defensemen that was on the roster for the full season. No matter how you guys try to spin it if Stecher played ahead of 2 D that was on the nhl roster for the full season. That means he wasnt on the team anymore because of injuries. Agree?

Biega has only played in one ahl game the Last 3 years. He might not been a regular spot in the lineup but he is on the nhl roster.

Tell me the last 4 years which young forward was good enough to make the team that didn't because of a Vet? I asked this question many times but the only answer was Stecher which is not really true. Once Stecher prove he was read deal he got his roster spot

The funny thing is in the Virtanen thread people are saying Canucks rushed him in the nhl. He should of been sent back to chl. Now on this thread users are complaining there not giving enough roster spot to younger players.

Biega has never been a roster player, his role has consistently been, stick around and you get a turn when everyone gets injured. And Larsen, he played in the KHL the season before because he wasn’t good enough. These are vets, these are typical journeyman that gets cast aside. These are guys that get passed by nearly everyone because that’s what you expect. You have more of an argument if Stecher was the reason Gubranson or Sbisa got benched. These are the guys Benning has gone out to acquire and these guys are the forward equivalent to Rousell and Beagle.
Look at the treatment of Goldy in the last year, make the same mistakes a vet makes and he gets send to the bench or the press box. Green is incredibly vet friendly, just ask the guys who watch Utica. I mean hell look at the treatment of Stecher/ Hutton compared to MDZ and Gubranson. The latter two is absolutely horrific and get way more rope than the former.

 

[me2]

“Rebuilds take ten years” -Holland. I’m sure we can all do the math. Assuming he’s talking championship caliber. Playoffs should come sooner. How much sooner?

Maybe he should have started earlier instead of pissing away assets, chasing veterans with futures, wasting his cap space on crap, etc.

I assume that's your point.

 

[Canucks1096]

Biega has never been a roster player, his role has consistently been, stick around and you get a turn when everyone gets injured. And Larsen, he played in the KHL the season before because he wasn’t good enough. These are vets, these are typical journeyman that gets cast aside. These are guys that get passed by nearly everyone because that’s what you expect. You have more of an argument if Stecher was the reason Gubranson or Sbisa got benched. These are the guys Benning has gone out to acquire and these guys are the forward equivalent to Rousell and Beagle.
Look at the treatment of Goldy in the last year, make the same mistakes a vet makes and he gets send to the bench or the press box. Green is incredibly vet friendly, just ask the guys who watch Utica. I mean hell look at the treatment of Stecher/ Hutton compared to MDZ and Gubranson. The latter two is absolutely horrific and get way more rope than the former.

You are changing the goal post now. Your last post you did say Stecher was still in the lineup because of all the injuries. Now I showed you evidences that it was not true because there 2 D that was a healthy scratch when Stecher was in the line up. It doesn't matter how crappy of a Defensemen Larsen and Biega is. The end result had Stecher in the lineup because He earned it and not because of injuries.

Why do I have a better argument of Stecher played ahead of Gudbranson and Sbisa. The original argument you were saying older players are blocking young players in the lineup. The evidences which proves that is not true.

The first half of season Goldobin wasn't ready . That's the reason why he wasn't in the lineup.

 

[Bleach Clean]

@Canucks1096

Couple of questions for you:

1. You've stated that Goldobin wasn't ready in the first half of last season. Implying that he is now. If he doesn't make the top12 forwards of the final roster, would it be fair to conclude that veterans supplanted his position on the team?

2. If Gaunce doesn't make the final 12 forward rotation, did Beagle/Roussel/Schaller force him off the team?

3. Same question for Granlund and Virtanen.