The Rebuild Started...

[Canucks1096]

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.




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



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.



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.



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



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

The reality was Stecher played 71 nhl games and only 4 ahl games. Yes he didnt make the team out of camp but once Canucks saw him more he was a regular in the top 6. Playing ahead of healthy defensemen. The end result for Aa big part of that season he was playing in the top 6 regardless of injuries. Your argument is pretty much Canucks were holding Him back for 4 games when he was in the AHL

I am not guessing on Hamhuis. They were reports came out when Benning got back to the Hawks and hawks were not interested anymore.

You still dont really get it. Your argument is base on results. So Benning at the end according to reports wanted a 1st for Hamhuis. So he was thinking of doing a trade that's a rebuild but he was too late. Him making a bad move Has nothing to do with not rebuilding. In the end he wanted to do it. But that is not rebuilding for you because you are looking at end results.

So if you are looking at the end results. That means pretend Benning got a lot picks and none of become nhl players. That means it's not rebuild move because you are looking at end results.

You are generalizing again because all the rebuilds are not the same

Pits they won the Crosby Lottery and they were able to draft Malkin 2nd overall pick.

Hawks did a bit of everything they won the Kane Lottery. Took advantage of Pits passing on Toews. Some good drafting. Made some good trade for young players Sharp Versteeg, Ladd. Made a big trade for Havlat and then use that money to sign Hossa. Also gave a big contract to Campbell.

Jets all they really did was hit a home run with all their 1st round picks. They didn't really sell off their Vets like Wheeler and Buff.

Both Pits and Hawks offered big contract to Gonchar and Campbell so I guess they were not rebuilding as well because they offered big contracts.

See what I mean you are generalizing think a rebuild can only happen one way.

Anyway. I am done with this debate. Seeing you in another thread.

 

[Bleach Clean]

You are generalizing again because all the rebuilds are not the same

Pits they won the Crosby Lottery and they were able to draft Malkin 2nd overall pick.

Hawks did a bit of everything they won the Kane Lottery. Took advantage of Pits passing on Toews. Some good drafting. Made some good trade for young players Sharp Versteeg, Ladd. Made a big trade for Havlat and then use that money to sign Hossa. Also gave a big contract to Campbell.

Jets all they really did was hit a home run with all their 1st round picks. They didn't really sell off their Vets like Wheeler and Buff.

Both Pits and Hawks offered big contract to Gonchar and Campbell so I guess they were not rebuilding as well because they offered big contracts.

See what I mean you are generalizing think a rebuild can only happen one way.

Every one of the teams you listed had a pick surplus in the 5 years surrounding the draft of their most important player (or players). Vancouver cannot claim this. This team's methodology is different. With regards to the most important assets in a rebuild, this team has chosen not to emphasize the procurement of picks = Not a Rebuild.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

You still dont really get it. Your argument is base on results. So Benning at the end according to reports wanted a 1st for Hamhuis. So he was thinking of doing a trade that's a rebuild but he was too late. Him making a bad move Has nothing to do with not rebuilding. In the end he wanted to do it. But that is not rebuilding for you because you are looking at end results.

There is nothing to get. You somehow argue that 6 is as many as 8. The team currently has no direction. Its not even up for debate if you just pay attention to the moves they make and don't insist on supporting Benning and Linden over your team or players like Horvat & Boeser who deserve better.

It has now been 18 months since we added assets that helps with the rebuild.

18 months. For the worst team in the league these past 3 years that is f***in insanity. Arguing semantics is ridiculous at this point.

 

[Canucks1096]

I think this thread should be change to rank Benning Performance. That is what we are debating about mainly and not if it's actual rebuild

A few of you have said if we trade a pick for struggling young player. If that young player turned out to be good player and then it's a good rebuilding move. That means we are not having debating if it is rebuild or not. We are having a Debate about Benning performance.

Hawks made the same type of move by trading a 3rd round pick struggling Sharp. Good rebuilding move for them because it worked out for them. Trading 2nd round pick for Vey is not rebuilding because it didn't work out.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I think this thread should be change to rank Benning Performance. That is what we are debating about mainly and not if it's actual rebuild

A few of you have said if we trade a pick for struggling young player. If that young player turned out to be good player and then it's a good rebuilding move. That means we are not having debating if it is rebuild or not. We are having a Debate about Benning performance.

Hawks made the same type of move by trading a 3rd round pick struggling Sharp. Good rebuilding move for them because it worked out for them. Trading 2nd round pick for Vey is not rebuilding because it didn't work out.

No. We are having a debate about the moves he makes and if those moves are the moves a rebuilding team should make.

 

[Canucks1096]

No. We are having a debate about the moves he makes and if those moves are the moves a rebuilding team should make.

Not really

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Not really

Sorry but you don't get to decide. Just because you write 10 times that "we don't understand what you mean".

It has now been 18 months since Jim Benning added assets to our rebuild.

 

[Canucks1096]

Sorry but you don't get to decide. Just because you write "10 times" that we don't understand what you mean.

It has now been 18 months since Jim Benning added assets to our rebuild.

I have a right to give my opinion. Are you the owner of this website?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I have a right to give my opinion. Are you the owner of this website?

Sure you do have the right. You need to make a decent case for it to convince anyone.

 

[Canucks1096]

Sure you do have the right. You need to make a decent case for it to convince anyone.

I think I did. On this site nobody is going admit they are wrong. If they do think they are wrong. They will just argue in circles or act like the T word.

I will give example everyone is saying all these Vets are blocking these young players from playing. But nobody can think of any Valid examples.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I think I did. On this site nobody is going admit they are wrong. If they do think they are wrong. They will just argue in circles or act like the T word.

I will give example everyone is saying all these Vets are blocking these young players from players from playing. But nobody can think of any Valid examples.

I've done it plenty of times. Admitted that I was wrong.

This was one of the worst FA:s by the Canucks that I've been a part of. They could have used the cap space & contract slots to overpay short term for players that are left without contracts after the "frenzy" is over. Then keep salary and trade them to playoff teams at the dead line for picks & prospects.

You think anyone wants a Beagle / Roussel with these horrible contracts for the term they got?

 

[Motte and Bailey]

So you think that's going to change as a 33 year old? I think it's just going to stay the same or continue to slide personally.

I think based on his career numbers and skill level yes he can easily bounce back to a 25/25 guy or even 30 if he plays with good players.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Just to remind you despite all the skillful acquisitions and the excellent deployment you apparently can see the Canucks are and have been a bottom feeder under Benning.....logic tells us he is crap in his current role.

Logic tells me that was more so the product of the Sedins being shells of their former selves and no prospect depth to help rejuvenate them

 

[pgj98m3]

Logic tells me that was more so the product of the Sedins being shells of their former selves and no prospect depth to help rejuvenate them

You need to take a logic course.

 

[racerjoe]

I think I did. On this site nobody is going admit they are wrong. If they do think they are wrong. They will just argue in circles or act like the T word.

I will give example everyone is saying all these Vets are blocking these young players from playing. But nobody can think of any Valid examples.

No you have shown only how players have gotten in after injuries, they may have then played themselves onto the team. Stetcher hell Boeser both were first blocked. A case could easily be made Archie was blocked last year, we didn't even sign him until mid way through the season.

Then you have RoE asking you valid questions that you won't answer as they would again prove your point wrong. You just keep ignoring the counters to any point you are making. This isn't being right, it is being ignorant. i enjoy debating people with different views than me, however it would be nice to have an honest conversation.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

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 I could list a whole bunch of moves where they traded veterans for draft picks/ long term players too. A rebuild is still a rebuild even if you’re rebuilding with some older, more battle tested parts.

You can rebuild by the draft, trade, and free agency. They explored all avenues which is exactly what they’re supposed to do.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

You need to take a logic course.

I have taken many and am extensively schooled in formal logic which is obvious to an outside unbiased perspective that I’m one of the few around here making valid inferences.

 

[racerjoe]

And I could list a whole bunch of moves where they traded veterans for draft picks/ long term players too. A rebuild is still a rebuild even if you’re rebuilding with some older, more battle tested parts.

You can rebuild by the draft, trade, and free agency. They explored all avenues which is exactly what they’re supposed to do.

Go ahead then, and it doesn't count if that pick or youth is flipped right away for a vet.

 

[Peter10]

And I could list a whole bunch of moves where they traded veterans for draft picks/ long term players too.

Anything besides Burrows for Dahlen and Hansen (in an expansion motivated move) for Goldobin who might now end up on waivers because they signed Beagle/Roussel/Schaller? And please dont mention Garrison as that 2nd was pissed away for Vey and the Bieksa trade where that 2nd was voluntarly handed over to the Pens in the Sutter trade.

So, probably Dahlen and then nothing...what a rebuild, I m really amazed.

 

[Peter10]

I have taken many and am extensively schooled in formal logic which is obvious to an outside unbiased perspective that I’m one of the few around here making valid inferences.

I am not positive this counts...

 

[tantalum]

It always boils down the same things:

1) if they were rebuilding for an extended period of time they have done just a piss poor job at it that it doesn't really matter if you can point to 1 moves or two dozen.

2) If they weren't rebuilding then they either failed to execute the plan they wanted to and/or were hopelessly incompetent as assessing the team.

 

[Canucks1096]

No you have shown only how players have gotten in after injuries, they may have then played themselves onto the team. Stetcher hell Boeser both were first blocked. A case could easily be made Archie was blocked last year, we didn't even sign him until mid way through the season.

Then you have RoE asking you valid questions that you won't answer as they would again prove your point wrong. You just keep ignoring the counters to any point you are making. This isn't being right, it is being ignorant. i enjoy debating people with different views than me, however it would be nice to have an honest conversation.

I don't think I need to show anything. You guys are saying olders players are blocking younger players from playing. You guys need to provide the examples.

Come on. Archibald is 28 years old so he is not some young prospect. Archibald choose to sign a 1yr 2 way contract with the Canucks. Does that Tell you anything?

More come on. Your example is 2 healthy scratch game by Boeser and 4 ahl games Stecher played. Once they played a few nhl game and prove they can play. They got the games.

So 10% of the season Canucks blocked young players from playing but 90% they didn't. The end results after a few games into the season the older players were not blocking the young players that were ready.

Who is ROE?

Try again I need better examples.

 

[Canucks1096]

I've done it plenty of times. Admitted that I was wrong.

This was one of the worst FA:s by the Canucks that I've been a part of. They could have used the cap space & contract slots to overpay short term for players that are left without contracts after the "frenzy" is over. Then keep salary and trade them to playoff teams at the dead line for picks & prospects.

You think anyone wants a Beagle / Roussel with these horrible contracts for the term they got?

They specially wanted certain players to fill a certain role. Sure maybe they could of sign cheap free agents after free agent frenzy is over but the players Benning wanted might not of been Available after free agent frenzy

No I don't think other team would give Beagle and Rousell 4 years but i do think they would of gotten more than 1 year. I do think Canucks need to extra years for them to sign here

Getting a players to help the young players is still considered a rebuild. For example Horvat is the number 1 center. Not even Once he had over 50% offensive zone starts. With Beagle taking lot of defensive zone faceoffs. Horvat can play more of an offensive role. If Horvat plays more of offensive that means wingers play more of an offensive role as well. You give Pettersson easier mins as well. About the penalty killing you can have Horvat play less now that you have Beagle.

You might not like the trade but Benning mindset is those guys will help the young players.

There are no report out saying Canucks try to sign big scorer which means they want to give the young player the offensive minutes. That is a sign of a rebuild.

 

[racerjoe]

I don't think I need to show anything. You guys are saying olders players are blocking younger players from playing. You guys need to provide the examples.

Come on. Archibald is 28 years old so he is not some young prospect. Archibald choose to sign a 1yr 2 way contract with the Canucks. Does that Tell you anything?

More come on. Your example is 2 healthy scratch game by Boeser and 4 ahl games Stecher played. Once they played a few nhl game and prove they can play. They got the games.

So 10% of the season Canucks blocked young players from playing but 90% they didn't. The end results after a few games into the season the older players were not blocking the young players that were ready.

Who is ROE?

Try again I need better examples.

RoE = @Ronning On Empty ... didn't think that would be hard to figure out.

Frank Corrado
Hutton when he was in Uttica... Hell Hutton this past season who even though he had a bad season was still statistically our third best dman
virtanen Has been scratched a fair bit, and pushed down the lineup just go back and read the provies for some of those instances.
Or again as others have said talk to people who watched this coach in Utica.

Can you name a few prospects who were given chances to play? The two you claim were only got i due to injuries, if it ended up being for the rest of the season or not it doesn't change the fact the were originally pushed down the lineup.

 

[Canucks1096]

Just gonna leave this here...

I don't really understand the joke. Only 4 people voted for 2014. Which means almost everyone knows the rebuild didn't start in 2014