The Rebuild Started...

[Motte and Bailey]

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

Of course it counts, especially if that vet is young enough to be a part of the team when it’s ready to contend again.

1. Kessler Was traded for 3 younger players. That’s a rebuilding move.

2. Garrison traded for draft pick. Then the pick was used to get another young player.

3. Bieksa was traded for a draft pick.

4. Burrows was traded for a young guy.

5. Hansen was traded for another young prospect.

6. Vanek was traded for young pieces

7. Jokinen too, the list goes on...

 

[PRNuck]

7. Jokinen too, the list goes on...

??

 

[Canucks1096]

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.

Corrado. Hahahahaha. When was he ready to take a roster spot?

We are not talking about Utica. Hutton being scratch in Utica playoffs have nothing to do with this debate. We are talking about the nhl. Hutton made the team and they made Weber a healthy scratch

You came late into the debate. Just a friendly reminder. The debate is about players that were ready but never got a chance during the season. Corrado didn't even earn a spot. After 3 years he probably still not ready

2015 Horvat Vey
2016 Virtanen Macann Hutton
2017 Stecher
2018 boeser

Is it fair for me to say this?

Older players were blocking Boeser to play in the nhl for 2% of the season. After 2% of the season Boeser showed he can play and was a regular in the lineup.

Older players were blocking Stecher from playing 10% of the season. After 10% of the season Stecher showed he can play and was playing regularly.

Is that fair for me to say?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Corrado. Hahahahaha. When was he ready to take a roster spot?

We are not talking about Utica. Hutton being scratch in Utica playoffs have nothing to do with this debate. We are talking about the nhl. Hutton made the team and they made Weber a healthy scratch

You came late into the debate. Just a friendly reminder. The debate is about players that were ready but never got a chance during the season. Corrado didn't even earn a spot. After 3 years he probably still not ready

2015 Horvat Vey
2016 Virtanen Macann Hutton
2017 Stecher
2018 boeser

Is it fair for me to say this?

Older players were blocking Boeser to play in the nhl for 2% of the season. After 2% of the season Boeser showed he can play and was a regular in the lineup.

Older players were blocking Stecher from playing 10% of the season. After 10% of the season Stecher showed he can play and was playing regularly.

Is that fair for me to say?

So did the rebuild end 18 months ago?

That was the last time Benning got us future assets in a trade.

 

[Canucks1096]

@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.

The statement I made was young players that were ready got a chance to play.

If all those players come to camp show they should be on the team ahead some Vets but are not. Then sure it is fair.

 

[Canucks1096]

So did the rebuild end 18 months ago?

That was the last time Benning got us future assets in a trade.

Liepsic Motte Pouliot. Are all considered rebuild moves. This is what I mean before when I say you are debating about the results. If those players turned out good then it's a rebuilding move. But if it doesn't then it is not rebuilding move.

You can debate all you want about why moves he should and shouldn't make on a rebuilding team but a lot of guys argument base on the results. That is what I mean when I say we are debating about It Benning is a good GM or not instead of the real thread topic which is when did the rebuild start.

Flyers traded a strugging Sharp to the Hawks for 3rd round pick. Great move by Hawks because it worked out. 2nd round for Vey not a rebuilding move because it didn't work out. But both intent behind both trades were hoping a struggling young players find his game in a new environment.

The funny thing is if you go to the Liespic thread. A lot people are quite high on Liepsic. But this thread he doesn't count as a rebuilding move because he doesn't help your argument.

 

[Canucks1096]

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.

I may disagree with some of the specific players you use in your argument but this post I agree.

The problem people have that mindset a rebuild you need to strip it down completely and get all draft picks. Obvious you need explore all the options.

 

[pgj98m3]

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.

You should ask to get your tuition refunded.

 

[pgj98m3]

I may disagree with some of the specific players you use in your argument but this post I agree.

The problem people have that mindset a rebuild you need to strip it down completely and get all draft picks. Obvious you need explore all the options.

And that approach has led to a bottom dwelling cap limited team.......

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Liepsic Motte Pouliot. Are all considered rebuild moves. This is what I mean before when I say you are debating about the results. If those players turned out good then it's a rebuilding move. But if it doesn't then it is not rebuilding move.

You can debate all you want about why moves he should and shouldn't make on a rebuilding team but a lot of guys argument base on the results. That is what I mean when I say we are debating about It Benning is a good GM or not instead of the real thread topic which is when did the rebuild start.

Flyers traded a strugging Sharp to the Hawks for 3rd round pick. Great move by Hawks because it worked out. 2nd round for Vey not a rebuilding move because it didn't work out. But both intent behind both trades were hoping a struggling young players find his game in a new environment.

The funny thing is if you go to the Liespic thread. A lot people are quite high on Liepsic. But this thread he doesn't count as a rebuilding move because he doesn't help your argument.

Its like haiving a pilot who doesnt know what it means to land an aircraft. Would you call him doing "landing moves" that lead to the plane crashing as him having started the landing?

 

[pgj98m3]

Its like haiving a pilot who doesnt know what it means to land an aircraft. Would you call him doing "landing moves" that lead to the plane crashing as him having started the landing?

But he’s learning from his mistakes.

 

[racerjoe]

Of course it counts, especially if that vet is young enough to be a part of the team when it’s ready to contend again.

1. Kessler Was traded for 3 younger players. That’s a rebuilding move.

2. Garrison traded for draft pick. Then the pick was used to get another young player.

3. Bieksa was traded for a draft pick.

4. Burrows was traded for a young guy.

5. Hansen was traded for another young prospect.

6. Vanek was traded for young pieces

7. Jokinen too, the list goes on...

1)The Kesler trade was not Futures motivated... We got a two now players back in bonino and Sbisa instead of younger better options.

2)As mentioned the Garrison trade is not futures when you ship that pick out right away for a now piece.

3)See above.

4) Agree

5) Was only traded because of expansion.

6) Vanek was traded for now pieces who probably won't be on the NHL team this season because they suck.

7) no he was not traded, we traded for him as part of the Vanek deal.

Corrado. Hahahahaha. When was he ready to take a roster spot?

We are not talking about Utica. Hutton being scratch in Utica playoffs have nothing to do with this debate. We are talking about the nhl. Hutton made the team and they made Weber a healthy scratch

You came late into the debate. Just a friendly reminder. The debate is about players that were ready but never got a chance during the season. Corrado didn't even earn a spot. After 3 years he probably still not ready

2015 Horvat Vey
2016 Virtanen Macann Hutton
2017 Stecher
2018 boeser

Is it fair for me to say this?

Older players were blocking Boeser to play in the nhl for 2% of the season. After 2% of the season Boeser showed he can play and was a regular in the lineup.

Older players were blocking Stecher from playing 10% of the season. After 10% of the season Stecher showed he can play and was playing regularly.

Is that fair for me to say?

Vey was actually blocking horvat. we acquired him as a now piece not future. I will concede Horvat and say 1.

its kind of funny, virtanen should not have made the team, at the time he was clearly not ready. McCann literally only stayed with the team because we had no other players, Benning or Linden confirmed this when talking about sending them to the WJC. hutton sure, I will give you this one.

Stetecher and boeser we already talked about.

 

[Shareefruck]

One big disparity I'm seeing here is that acquiring 22-25 year olds is being lumped in with rebuilding. We're fully aware that Benning is willing to pick up and trade for near-NHL-ready, about to expire young-ish reclamation projects as an attempt to re-tool on the fly while trying to compete simultaneously. Strange to consider that rebuilding, though.

If you want to consider that a rebuild anyways (purely on the basis that he IS making changes and transitioning to a new set of YOUNGER players than what we had before, which I think we can all agree that he is), I suppose you're free to do that, and it's just disagreement about a technicality, where you're a little less strict/extreme about your definition of "rebuild".

He's certainly not rebuilding using any approach that resembles anything that makes the idea of rebuilding something that is actually worth considering, though.

I would also contend that you're dead wrong that people are only refusing it to consider it a rebuild based on poor performance. If Sbisa, Bonino, Vey, Gudbranson, Baertschi, Goldobin, Granlund, and whoever I'm missing all turned out fantastic, and we won the cup on the backs of that new group of players, it still wouldn't be considered a rebuild by most people-- it would be considered a shockingly successful retool-on-the-fly.

It's a very important distinction, because it's a completely different approach from what most people have in mind when bringing up the idea of rebuilding. (and hell, Benning/Linden themselves appear to share that definition, because they didn't want to use the word "rebuild" to describe what they were doing earlier on, despite clearly being willing to make those kinds of "getting younger with 22-25-year-olds" moves)

 

[arttk]

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.

Stecher was in the lineup because of the injuries. Tanev was out after Oct 23rd and Stecher played his first game Oct 25th. How is that not getting a chance because of injuries? Hell Larsen was playing when Stecher was inserted into the lineup.
Biega didn’t sit for Stecher, Biega is like a last resort dman where he plays when the whole D is injured. This happens every single year, we even play him in th AHL because he passes through waivers easily. He is the definition of a reserve D.

Yeah older players block young players in terms of opportunities. Hutton got shafted when Green prefers MDZ because MDZ is a prized signing and a vet. Stecher got shafted when Gubranson gets opportunities despite playing like crap. Green favors established NHL vets more and gives opportunities to the vets over rookies and young guys.

 

[Bleach Clean]

The statement I made was young players that were ready got a chance to play.

If all those players come to camp show they should be on the team ahead some Vets but are not. Then sure it is fair.

Gaunce, Goldobin, Leipsic, Gaudette and Granlund all "got a chance to play" this past year. By your definition, that makes them "ready". If any one of those players comes to camp and lose(s) their spot, you are willing to admit that veterans may have blocked their development?

I just want to be very sure about your position before we see what unfolds.

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.

Correct. One could say that the retool failed because the Sedins aged, but that still comes down to the GM's assessment of their declining play. Or, the GM's inability to assess the strength of the support available or possible. The retool is a failure.

They have never rebuilt the team, but if this is what they think constitutes a rebuild, then they've failed to attain enough of a prospect base so as to give them the best chance at a new core. Effectively, they've operated as if they are a middling club instead of a basement level club, more or less.

 

[y2kcanucks]

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.

Yeah best you be done with this. Arguing that Benning is rebuilding because he didn't trade Hamhuis but because you think he probably wanted a 1 is probably the most ridiculous thing I've read on here. And that's a very high bar so congratulations on hitting a new low.

 

[Bleach Clean]

@RonningMorrisonBooth

Questions:

1. Do you think a rebuilding team should have a pick surplus over its 4-5 year rebuilding state?

2. Has this franchise carried a net pick surplus over that 5 year span?

3. Can you point to another franchise's same 4-5 year rebuild window where the team did not carry a pick surplus?

 

[me2]

The sophistry from Benning fan club is reaching new levels.

 

[bossram]

Of course it counts, especially if that vet is young enough to be a part of the team when it’s ready to contend again.

1. Kessler Was traded for 3 younger players. That’s a rebuilding move.

2. Garrison traded for draft pick. Then the pick was used to get another young player.

3. Bieksa was traded for a draft pick.

4. Burrows was traded for a young guy.

5. Hansen was traded for another young prospect.

6. Vanek was traded for young pieces

7. Jokinen too, the list goes on...

Liepsic Motte Pouliot. Are all considered rebuild moves. This is what I mean before when I say you are debating about the results. If those players turned out good then it's a rebuilding move. But if it doesn't then it is not rebuilding move.

You can debate all you want about why moves he should and shouldn't make on a rebuilding team but a lot of guys argument base on the results. That is what I mean when I say we are debating about It Benning is a good GM or not instead of the real thread topic which is when did the rebuild start.

So any time you trade assets for a piece < age 25, that's a rebuilding move?

I guess Nashville made a rebuilding move at the deadline when they traded for Ryan Hartman? I don't think anyone thinks Nashville is in a "rebuild". But that's a pick for a young player. Same as the types of moves in the Pouliot/Clendening/Vey/Leipsic/Granlund mould.

Or maybe clearly Gillis started the rebuild when he traded the Schneider for Horvat? That seems like a more obvious "rebuild" move. So maybe in the end, #gillyknew

You see how this logic is terrible?

 

[Canucks1096]

Yeah best you be done with this. Arguing that Benning is rebuilding because he didn't trade Hamhuis but because you think he probably wanted a 1 is probably the most ridiculous thing I've read on here. And that's a very high bar so congratulations on hitting a new low.

Feel free to keep on generalizing

 

[Canucks1096]

So any time you trade assets for a piece < age 25, that's a rebuilding move?

I guess Nashville made a rebuilding move at the deadline when they traded for Ryan Hartman? I don't think anyone thinks Nashville is in a "rebuild". But that's a pick for a young player. Same as the types of moves in the Pouliot/Clendening/Vey/Leipsic/Granlund mould.

Or maybe clearly Gillis started the rebuild when he traded the Schneider for Horvat? That seems like a more obvious "rebuild" move. So maybe in the end, #gillyknew

You see how this logic is terrible?

Let me play this game as well. So when Hawks were rebuilding they gave an 8 year contract TO Campbell. Pits gave a 5 year contract to Gonchar. So according to the user on this thread signing long term contract is not rebuilding So I guess Pits and Hawks were not rebuilding as well.

 

[Canucks1096]

Stecher was in the lineup because of the injuries. Tanev was out after Oct 23rd and Stecher played his first game Oct 25th. How is that not getting a chance because of injuries? Hell Larsen was playing when Stecher was inserted into the lineup.
Biega didn’t sit for Stecher, Biega is like a last resort dman where he plays when the whole D is injured. This happens every single year, we even play him in th AHL because he passes through waivers easily. He is the definition of a reserve D.

Yeah older players block young players in terms of opportunities. Hutton got shafted when Green prefers MDZ because MDZ is a prized signing and a vet. Stecher got shafted when Gubranson gets opportunities despite playing like crap. Green favors established NHL vets more and gives opportunities to the vets over rookies and young guys.

Let's try this one more time. You wrote Stecher was still in the lineup when Tanev return because other D were out with injuries. So a few post ago I sent you a link indicating that is not true because both Larsen and Biega for stretches were healthy scratches. So Stecher was ahead of them and playing. So that proves Stecher wasn't in the lineup anymore because of injuries. I will admit Stecher was good enough to make the team in training camp. Once Stecher got a chance because of injuries he proves to the Canucks he is the real deal. So by Nov he wasn't in the lineup because of injuries anymore. So 10% of season Vets are blocking him. Before you were indicating Stecher was here for pretty much the full season because of injuries. Which is not true.

It doesn't matter what Biega is. The fact you did write Stecher was only playing thss season because of injuries. That proves you 100% wrong right there.

Not even Once Stecher was a healthy scratch since he came a regular. What are you talking about on Stecher getting shaft because of Gudbranson.

Hutton was actually second in ice time for D up to Dec. So all of sudden Green decides that he not a fan of Hutton. I am not going to play him or was it because of his play and conditioning that got took him out of the lineup

Both Hutton and MDZ were bad this year. You can make thst argument Hutton was better. I can make argument that MDZ was better.

 

[Ryp37]

Let me play this game as well. So when Hawks were rebuilding they gave an 8 year contract TO Campbell. Pits gave a 5 year contract to Gonchar. So according to the user on this thread signing long term contract is not rebuilding So I guess Pits and Hawks were not rebuilding as well.

Pens had just drafted Crosby and made the playoffs in year 2 of Gonchars contract, won the cup in year 4

Hawks had Toews and Kane and made the playoffs the year they signed Campbell

You have to actually look at these teams timelines, there's a difference between sucking and rebuilding and a difference between rebuilding and transitioning

 

[Jay Cee]

All this thread was from the very beginning (with its very strange poll question) was a circle jerk from the same people who cannot stand this regime to say "omgz the rebuild hasn't happened yet."

I don't know what that really accomplishes or proves.

 

[Canucks1096]

Pens had just drafted Crosby and made the playoffs in year 2 of Gonchars contract, won the cup in year 4

Hawks had Toews and Kane and made the playoffs the year they signed Campbell

You have to actually look at these teams timelines, there's a difference between sucking and rebuilding and a difference between rebuilding and transitioning

So half of what your saying if you get the results. It's a good rebuilding move. When you don't it's not a good rebuilding move.

So we are pretty much debating if Benning is a good GM and not if Canucks are rebuilding.