The Rebuild Started...

[Canucks1096]

The sophistry from Benning fan club is reaching new levels.

To be honest I am not even a Benning fan. But I am type of user who call things the way I see it.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

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?

It’s pretty clear that Gillis indeed wanted to rebuild before his firing and had that in mind when trading Schneids for Bo. Yes I agree with that.

A playoff contender team making moves with an eye toward the future could be seen as a rebuilding move in isolation because it’s consistent with rebuilding but when you look at the context you know they aren’t rebuilding because their window hasn’t closed yet. With context the move is more about keeping their current window open for longer.

 

[Bleach Clean]

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.

You say that as if all options yield the same benefits, they don't. People are citing the traditional form of a rebuild as a reference point for rebuilds because that's what yielded the most+best futures. The primary mode was to collect futures. The best futures are picks. When you move away from that approach, you move away from what constitutes a rebuild. No other method yields the same volume of picks.

Also, can you please verify the following: If any one of Gaudette, Gaunce, Goldobin, Granlund and/or Leipsic is moved off the roster in camp, does this signify veterans blocking development? (They were all on the team this past year)

 

[Shareefruck]

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.

Seems like a pretty clear attempt to provoke both sides into arguing with each other, to me (as evidenced by the fact that the first few responses aren't comments like yours calling foul play, but rather people from both sides pulling out pop-corn emoticons)

What gives you the impression that it gives people who think a rebuild hasn't started yet any more of an opportunity to circle jerk than the people who think it has?

 

[Shareefruck]

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.

You keep repeating this sentiment, but it doesn't seem to be reflective of what people are actually arguing. It's a question of methodology, not results. You are mistaking differences in evaluation of methodology that you disagree with for conflated results/expectations.

It is not agreeable/true that if Granlund, Vey, Baertschi, or Gudbranson were wildly SUCCESSFUL young players, they would suddenly be considered rebuild moves. Obtaining "young players" alone is not sufficient evidence of a rebuild.

 

[Canucks1096]

You say that as if all options yield the same benefits, they don't. People are citing the traditional form of a rebuild as a reference point for rebuilds because that's what yielded the most+best futures. The primary mode was to collect futures. The best futures are picks. When you move away from that approach, you move away from what constitutes a rebuild. No other method yields the same volume of picks.

Also, can you please verify the following: If any one of Gaudette, Gaunce, Goldobin, Granlund and/or Leipsic is moved off the roster in camp, does this signify veterans blocking development? (They were all on the team this past year)

The answer could be Yes or No or May be. All those players are considered bubble player. None of them hasn't really separated themselves from the pack. You can definitely make an argument for both ways.

Think of Vey. He had regular roster spot but he didn't do anything to take the next step and he was gone. He was gone because he didn't deserve a spot and not really because of a Vet.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Feel free to keep on generalizing

I've used specific examples. YOU are the one ignoring reality because of what you think Benning is trying to do. YOU are ignoring reality. YOU are ignoring actuals. There is no rebuild whether or not you want to ignore the reality.

 

[Bleach Clean]

The answer could be Yes or No or May be. All those players are considered bubble player. None of them hasn't really separated themselves from the pack. You can definitely make an argument for both ways.

Think of Vey. He had regular roster spot but he didn't do anything to take the next step and he was gone. He was gone because he didn't deserve a spot and not really because of a Vet.

What is the difference between "separating themselves from the pack" and implying that one or more are 'ready'? When asked about Goldobin, here's what you said:

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

Implying that Goldobin was in the line up in the 2nd half because he was then _ready_, yes? And so, he's now ready, but still a "bubble player"? Meaning he's ready but not ready?

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

So are you saying that Vey was not deserving of a spot for the 116 games he actually played for the Canucks?

 

[Canucks1096]

What is the difference between "separating themselves from the pack" and implying that one or more are 'ready'? When asked about Goldobin, here's what you said:



Implying that Goldobin was in the line up in the 2nd half because he was then _ready_, yes? And so, he's now ready, but still a "bubble player"? Meaning he's ready but not ready?

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

So are you saying that Vey was not deserving of a spot for the 116 games he actually played for the Canucks?

Just because Goldobin took the next step in the second half and show he was ready it doesnt mean that will continue on. 2000/2001 Harold Druken took the next step and perform well down the stretch. Had horrible camp the next and struggle and he was gone.

 

[Canucks1096]

I've used specific examples. YOU are the one ignoring reality because of what you think Benning is trying to do. YOU are ignoring reality. YOU are ignoring actuals. There is no rebuild whether or not you want to ignore the reality.

The reality is your painting a picture in your head and claiming this move and that move are not rebuilding because it doesn't fit your agenda. Trading vet for prospects is not rebuilding move. I never heard of that before.

 

[racerjoe]

The reality is your painting a picture in your head and claiming this move and that move are not rebuilding because it doesn't fit your agenda. Trading vet for prospects is not rebuilding move. I never heard of that before.

I could say the same thing for what you are doing... I would hardly call Poo or Granlund or Motte, or Vey a prospect with when we got them, or if you wanted to, I would not call them very good prospects.

 

[Bleach Clean]

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.

It's not the best on the high end because the Sedins were both drafted in 99'. You want to say this pool is better at the top end of that pool?

Some counter-points for you to consider:

- The Wings were retooling, not rebuilding in the years you mentioned. They were a playoff team for over 2 decades.
- You are amalgamating timelines that had 12 round selections to those that had/have 7 round selections. FYI
- The Bruins were in the playoffs in 2002-2004, and again from 2007-2011. You want to classify that as a rebuild timeline?
- From 2001 to 2011, the Canucks finished bottom10 twice. In those years, they drafted Bourdon and Hodgson. Where are you getting that the Canucks were rebuilding during this time?
- The Pens were about average in a 12 round draft format, yes.

Nothing you have said invalidates what some of the best hockey minds have promoted about pick procurement and the importance of pick frequency. You're battling mountains of data by saying pick acquisition is optional. It's also historically proven that the best players come from the draft. The difference here is that you are saying only the top pick serves this endeavor, while near everyone else is saying that all picks serve this endeavor and the top pick does it the best. See the difference? This doesn't translate to those depth picks being optional. They are very necessary to add true value to the roster.

I can post some articles about this if you think it will change your mind?

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.

Disagree on both counts. Rebuilding is a mode. It starts when this regime procures a surplus of picks and sells off aging assets for picks. I'm expecting this year to be the first year they actually do this. The draft being in VAN will definitely push them in this direction.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Just because Goldobin took the next step in the second half and show he was ready it doesnt mean that will continue on. 2000/2001 Harold Druken took the next step and perform well down the stretch. Had horrible camp the next and struggle and he was gone.

The question is: If Goldobin is ready, why is he in danger of losing his spot?

How can we see if Goldobin will continue on developing if he gets bumped off the roster at camp? He won't get the games necessary to allow for that judgement to occur.

Also, to re-iterate: Was Vey not deserving of a spot when he played the 116 games for the Canucks?

 

[y2kcanucks]

The reality is your painting a picture in your head and claiming this move and that move are not rebuilding because it doesn't fit your agenda. Trading vet for prospects is not rebuilding move. I never heard of that before.

Trading away draft picks and entering drafts with pick deficits is not rebuilding. Pay attention.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

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

Had you bothered to read the post directly preceding the one you quoted, you'd have noticed that user was telling us all about how long the "rebuild" should take, whereas the tweet I quoted in response is Linden telling us all about how in 4-5 years he'd hoped the Canucks would be there "with the elite teams", thereby showing us that a) the people running this team disagreed with the 7-10 year rebuild time put forward by the previous post and b) have failed miserably in their stated goal.

But people still have confidence in them to build or rebuild a contending team after failing to come even close after four years with a very dire-looking year five a few months away. That's the joke.

Anyway, now you can return to whatever stupid argument over semantics you're having with half the board.

 

[Kryten]

A rebuild starts when the owner and management give a letter to fans and STH explicitly stating that a rebuild is starting, hell even continuing

 

[PuckMunchkin]

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.

Why were they not rebuilding?

To be honest I am not even a Benning fan. But I am type of user who call things the way I see it.

Ask your self this; Does a set of facts exist that could change your mind on this?

 

[me2]

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.

Kesler was not in any way, shape or form a rebuilding move. Jim was trying to win first and foremost not rebuild, it was barely a retooling move.

1. Benning didn't want to trade Kesler would not have traded Kesler is he wasn't pushed to. That's not rebuilding, he was forced.

2. Bonino and Sbisa were vets. 2C and 4D in Benning's mind. The 1st was just the price to round out the deal.

3. He later traded away the prospect he got with the 1st for another vet.

4. Garrison was moved to make room for Sbisa not for any rebuilding grand plan.

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...

Non-rebuilding teams also makes deals for prospects, nothing exciting here. Non-rebuilding teams dump UFAs at the deadline. Most teams have no trouble getting lots of picks, unlike Jim.

Vanek traded for "young pieces"? Jokinen is young? Motte is a 23 AHLer with 4th line upside Schaller Beagle Roussel just took his spot. Meh.

Hansen and Bieksa are about it for "rebuilding" and that's not rebuilding that just general moves. You could even argue Hansen was moved because of the expansion draft not a rebuild. Jim would have probably have kept him for another year if it was not for the expansion draft.


Rebuilding is a coordinated plan, Jim's moves are just random and some have prospects, some don't, many trades don't get made that should, cap space isn't used properly. Bad management leading to big mess, can fool the gullible into thinking it's a rebuild. Their actions and intentions have categorically proven otherwise.

 

[tantalum]

To clarify from what I can see:

The statement most are making is not so much "rebuilding teams do not give out long term deals" it's "rebuilding teams don't give out long term, significant money deals to players who are not anything more then 4th liners or 6-8 D-men on decent to good teams". Why? Because it is those guys who block development of younger players who break into the league in those slots before jumping into the top 6 or top 4.

And in particular on this team they do lean on veterans. If the rumours are true that Green asked for Beagle and Roussel how likely is it that he benches them if there is a youngster at or near their level? It's not likely and that is the problem. Now bring in some camp filler or waiver fodder that can essentially do the same job for near minimum wage and you allow a true honest competition for that spot.

To the attempted point of Campbell and Gonchar: These were star offensive D-men in the league...they are not blocking anyone from getting a spin out of camp on the third pairing in order to prove their worth. They were good players that in no way were going to block someone or be replaced by the time the rebuild was over. Also note that both teams were starting to come out of the rebuild phase and into the make changes to become a challenger phase at that point. Pens went to the playoffs in year 2 of the Gonchar contract, the finals in year 3 and won in year 4. The Hawks went to the third round in year 1 of the deal and won the cup in year 2.

me2 in the post above is completely correct. Rebuilding is a coordinated plan and Benning is random. Which is why I tend to avoid the rebuilding or not argument and simple say "It doesn't matter what the plan is or isn't or when any plan was being followed. He did a bad job." You can throw the entire are they or aren't they argument out the window as it doesn't matter. He's a bad GM.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

To clarify from what I can see:

The statement most are making is not so much "rebuilding teams do not give out long term deals" it's "rebuilding teams don't give out long term, significant money deals to players who are not anything more then 4th liners or 6-8 D-men on decent to good teams". Why? Because it is those guys who block development of younger players who break into the league in those slots before jumping into the top 6 or top 4.

This forces Benning bro's to hold two opinnions at the same time:

We have the best prospect pool in the league

at the same time

We have had no young players that were blocked from playing in the league by vets while icing a older than average hockey time

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Kesler was not in any way, shape or form a rebuilding move. Jim was trying to win first and foremost not rebuild, it was barely a retooling move.

1. Benning didn't want to trade Kesler would not have traded Kesler is he wasn't pushed to. That's not rebuilding, he was forced.

2. Bonino and Sbisa were vets. 2C and 4D in Benning's mind. The 1st was just the price to round out the deal.

3. He later traded away the prospect he got with the 1st for another vet.

4. Garrison was moved to make room for Sbisa not for any rebuilding grand plan.



Non-rebuilding teams also makes deals for prospects, nothing exciting here. Non-rebuilding teams dump UFAs at the deadline. Most teams have no trouble getting lots of picks, unlike Jim.

Vanek traded for "young pieces"? Jokinen is young? Motte is a 23 AHLer with 4th line upside Schaller Beagle Roussel just took his spot. Meh.

Hansen and Bieksa are about it for "rebuilding" and that's not rebuilding that just general moves.


Rebuilding is a coordinated plan, Jim's moves are just random and some have prospects, some don't, many trades don't get made that should, cap space isn't used properly. Bad management leading to big mess, can fool the gullible into thinking it's a rebuild. Their actions and intentions have categorically proven otherwise.

1. The Kesler move was definitely consistent with rebuilding. Trading a core player for 2 younger players and futures is a prototypical rebuilding move. I agree at the time they weren't rebuilding yet but the details of the Kesler trade is evidence that Benning had an inkling that a rebuild was likely.

2. You just implied that Motte at 23 years old was young but argue that Sbisa wasn't? Sbisa was still young by NHL standards at the time for defensemen. He was only 24 years old. Bonino had just turned 26 and was definitely not considered old.

3. Likewise Gudbranson was another young defenseman by NHL standards at 24. Just because he played a lot of games doesn't change that. It's still consistent with rebuilding to acquire young veteran players.

4. Seeing as Sbisa's age made his acquisition consistent with rebuilding, getting rid of Garrison to make room for him would also be consistent with rebuilding.

Everything Benning has done seems to fit the M.O. of get faster, younger, and more skilled which is a legitimate rebuild plan.

 

[Shareefruck]

For crying out loud, trading for 24-26 year olds are not "prototypical rebuilding moves".

You are mistaking moves that may possibly be compatible with supplementing a rebuild (but really, is just as compatible with a retool or trying to win now) as something that is synonymous with it.

It isn't reasonable to just look at a rebuilding team, pick out the acquisitions that involve obtaining players that are a little bit older, and think "Oh, I guess that's what defines a rebuild then."

Rebuilds are rebuilds in spite of these types of acquisitions, not because of them. What makes them rebuilds are that these types of moves are vastly outnumbered by attempts to stockpile actual picks and prospects (which 23-24 year olds generally no longer are).

If your argument was instead hypothetically "Look, we ARE stockpiling picks and prospects and ending up with a surplus of those. Trading for 24-26 year olds doesn't prevent it from being a rebuild, because other rebuild teams do it too," that would at least make some semblance of sense.

Arguing that a rebuild is not defined by stockpiling a surplus of picks and prospects, and instead is simply anything that involves getting a bit younger than the previous core (regardless of the former being false), is total nonsense.

 

[me2]

1. The Kesler move was definitely consistent with rebuilding. Trading a core player for 2 younger players and futures is a prototypical rebuilding move. I agree at the time they weren't rebuilding yet but the details of the Kesler trade is evidence that Benning had an inkling that a rebuild was likely.

Hilarious given this rebuilding talk is coming from the same Benning Bro's that decried a rebuild for years as it would "ruin the kids" and applauded Benning not rebuilding......

Now we get wonderful logic like this

Benning Bro's: a rebuild takes 8-10 years, so have patience.

Benning Bro's: Jim got 2 younger players.....

Let's do the maths on that rebuild time scale shall we.

* Bonino would be 36ish
* Sbisa would be 34ish.

Jim Bob planned on rebuilding and competing around a 36yo Bonino and a 34yo Sbisa. And some how that makes sense to Jim Bob's fans.



I'm not even going to waste my time on the rest of the dross you posted.

 

[I in the Eye]

I agree at the time they weren't rebuilding yet but the details of the Kesler trade is evidence that Benning had an inkling that a rebuild was likely.

No, the details of the Kesler trade is a piece of evidence in a long list that Benning doesn't have a brain.

Can I be a moon walker without walking on the moon? Can a cat be a dog? Can a fish be a bicycle? There is no way anyone can call what Benning has done over the past 4 years as a rebuild.

Listen to the very first question McKenzie asks Benning:



Everything Benning has done has followed what he explained in his answer to this first question. Listen to the first two questions and answers... What he's done follows what he thinks.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Everything Benning has done seems to fit the M.O. of get faster, younger, and more skilled which is a legitimate rebuild plan.

Except the part where the team was supposed to get faster, younger or more skilled.