The Rebuild Started...

[tyhee]

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

I agreed with most of your post, but I think the Garrison move even worse from a rebuilding standpoint than you've indicated.

Without moving Garrison the Canucks had a roster spot and enough cap space to fit the $2.175 million 2014-15 cap hit of Luca Sbisa. What they were short of was sufficient cap space to sign, four days later, a goalie who was about to turn 34 years of age for $6 million per season and a 33 year old right winger for $5 million per season.

Obviously signing a 34 year old and a 33 year old was not aimed at rebuilding but at an immediate return to the playoffs. It even worked for one season.

 

[member 290103]

Obviously signing a 34 year old and a 33 year old was not aimed at rebuilding but at an immediate return to the playoffs. It even worked for one season.

I am waiting for Benning to try and tell us these deals are 4 year "show me" deals.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I am waiting for Benning to try and tell us these deals are 4 year "show me" deals.

They're just placeholder deals for the awesome guys they'll draft in 2020.

 

[Trelane]

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?
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.

Sure, EP bested anything Nielsson or Forsberg accomplished, never mind the twins.

To me rebuilt simply means younger players in and older players out in the majority of transaction over consecutive years. Whether they come as picks (late 1st - 7th) or up-and-coming NHLers is probably irrelevant. Rebuilding is different from retooling only in that the clubs tend not to make playoffs and retain their (early) 1sts. The distinction can get blurred, as with the Nucks who transitioned from the West Coast Express to the Twins. Got themselves a new core in 1999-04 via drafting and didn’t know it for almost 10 years.

The idea of selling everything that moves for picks as requisite to build a championship caliber squad is relatively new. I blame the internet and overabundance of arm chair theorists. The average GM doesn’t stay long enough with a club to harness the fruits of what finicky Canadian fan bases are proposing. They ALL try to expedite the process. Witness GM of the Year McPhee blowing his brains out with the Tatar deal. Maybe the “best minds in hockey” have yet to reach the industry apex.

If the Wings and (sometimes) the Bruins made playoffs in all those prior years, while not adding picks, does that not indicate that a rebuild via hording picks is unnecessary? After all, Lidstrom was the only constant.

I’m aware that there used to be 9 and 12 rounds. Only the Hawks and Kings had more picks and of those only the Hawks profited in getting a good player (2nd pairing D). The point remains. No Kane and Toews or no Doughty and Kopitar = no cups. No twins = no president trophies. Early picks is where it its at. Adding an extra mid to late pick or two every year is optional.

Haven’t crunched the numbers but I suspect that tanking and skipping past 5 slots in the top 10 > having an extra 2nd for every year the average GM spends with the club.

Yup, Van will likely have extra picks this year but it will be a product of hosting and the fact that Edler/Tanev deal is due. But I must say, if that’s the date then someone must be doing a heck of a job if we already have a top 5 prospects pool sans rebuilt

 

[Canucks1096]

When a GM decides to rebuild. They are pretty much getting rid of the old core and/or getting rid secondary core as well. First few years they were retooling but as of 2016/2017 they did decide to rebuild. Look at this list of player Sedins Kesler Burrows Higgins Hansen Bieksa Garrison Hamhuis Edler Tanev. Each one of these they try move from younger assets. Either some players didn't waive their ntc, Canucks traded for younger assets or that player had no value or they try move that player but the offer wasn't there anymore. So with the old guys out, now Benning is building a new core that will have Boeser Horvat Pettersson Dahlen Gaudette Hughes Juolevi. There were no reports that Canucks went after scorer. That means there giving the young guy a chance to.be main core. How in the world is this not a rebuild? Just because Benning made some horrible moves it doesn't mean there not rebuilding. Looking at the results of a trade than determining it's not a rebuild because trade didn't work out doesn't make any sense.

This myth about rebuilding teams don't go after struggling early 20 year old is non sense. Look at Hawks they add it 3 struggling early 20 year old as part of their rebuild Sharp, Versteeg, Ladd.

The user that said Kesler trade is not rebuild move is ridiculous. There was a YouTube video where all the management was talking about the Kesler trade. Benning indicate he thinks Sbisa will be a top 4 D in 3yrs. They didn't expect Sbisa to made impact right away but 3 years from now. Benning got it wrong with sbisa but its still doesn't change the fact he was thinking of the future when the made that trade.

 

[Canucks1096]

Why were they not rebuilding?



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

You guys won't be able to change my mind because what you guys are saying is not true. One user said if you trade draft picks for a struggling early 20 year old. If it pays off then it's a good rebuilding move. So you guys are just looking at the results of the transaction to determine if it good rebuild move. So the reality we are debating how good GM Benning is and not if Canucks are rebuilding.

Ask yourself this question you got rid of old core and now you are building a young new core. How is that not a rebuild?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

You guys won't be able to change my mind because what you guys are saying is not true. One user said if you trade draft picks for a struggling early 20 year old. If it pays off then it's a good rebuilding move. So you guys are just looking at the results of the transaction to determine if it good rebuild move. So the reality we are debating how good GM Benning is and not if Canucks are rebuilding.

Ask yourself this question you got rid of old core and now you are building a young new core. How is that not a rebuild?

Sone guy said a thing there for all of us think that way?

Can you answer that question I asked? What would change your mind about Benning & his "rebuild" ?

 

[Bleach Clean]

You guys won't be able to change my mind because what you guys are saying is not true. One user said if you trade draft picks for a struggling early 20 year old. If it pays off then it's a good rebuilding move. So you guys are just looking at the results of the transaction to determine if it good rebuild move. So the reality we are debating how good GM Benning is and not if Canucks are rebuilding.

Ask yourself this question you got rid of old core and now you are building a young new core. How is that not a rebuild?

It's not a rebuild because you can do the same thing as a retooling club. What would be the distinction in that case?

Rebuilding is a ground up approach with intention. You have limited that intention to just getting a "young core" without regard to the quality of that core or the volume of that core. Essentially, you are saying that it's enough to do just enough, and classify that as rebuilding. Where as other are saying that it has to be an all encompassing mode because team assets are limited and the prime rebuilding assets are always picks. Leveraging those assets to procure picks is the main goal. Why? Because the draft is the best place to acquire future core assets.

This is a step by step logical walk through of a rebuild. Yes, you can sometimes trade draft picks for 20 year old gambles. Yes, you can sign long term deals. You can even sign FAs. But if you do all of this and still do not prioritize the draft, you are not rebuilding.

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?

Any answer to the above?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Sure, EP bested anything Nielsson or Forsberg accomplished, never mind the twins.

To me rebuilt simply means younger players in and older players out in the majority of transaction over consecutive years. Whether they come as picks (late 1st - 7th) or up-and-coming NHLers is probably irrelevant. Rebuilding is different from retooling only in that the clubs tend not to make playoffs and retain their (early) 1sts. The distinction can get blurred, as with the Nucks who transitioned from the West Coast Express to the Twins. Got themselves a new core in 1999-04 via drafting and didn’t know it for almost 10 years.

The idea of selling everything that moves for picks as requisite to build a championship caliber squad is relatively new. I blame the internet and overabundance of arm chair theorists. The average GM doesn’t stay long enough with a club to harness the fruits of what finicky Canadian fan bases are proposing. They ALL try to expedite the process. Witness GM of the Year McPhee blowing his brains out with the Tatar deal. Maybe the “best minds in hockey” have yet to reach the industry apex.

If the Wings and (sometimes) the Bruins made playoffs in all those prior years, while not adding picks, does that not indicate that a rebuild via hording picks is unnecessary? After all, Lidstrom was the only constant.

If Holland thought the same, why would have collected 21 picks for the last 2 drafts?

You are making a Post Hoc fallacy with the above. That a team like DET could upset pick yield averages over a span of time does not dictate that every team could upset pick yield averages using the same method. If it were the case, then DET would be employing that method right now, not chasing an abundance of picks like Holland is actually doing. That same architect is proving your theory false.

The draft has always been the source of the best core players. As far back as I can recall. What is changing now is the valuation and probability placed upon picks. We are learning more about their conversion rates. More about their value. And so, if you understand that picks are draws, and that draw frequency increases your probability to hit, then no logical argument can be made to assail the pursuit of picks. More equals a greater ability to hit. Less equals a lesser ability to hit. Ergo, if you want more hits at the draft, get more picks. It's not complicated.

Even if you rank EP above each Sedin (very lofty), you are still talking about 2 prospects of that calibre vs. one. There's nothing in this pool that matches that state. Nothing.

I’m aware that there used to be 9 and 12 rounds. Only the Hawks and Kings had more picks and of those only the Hawks profited in getting a good player (2nd pairing D). The point remains. No Kane and Toews or no Doughty and Kopitar = no cups. No twins = no president trophies. Early picks is where it its at. Adding an extra mid to late pick or two every year is optional.

Haven’t crunched the numbers but I suspect that tanking and skipping past 5 slots in the top 10 > having an extra 2nd for every year the average GM spends with the club.

Yup, Van will likely have extra picks this year but it will be a product of hosting and the fact that Edler/Tanev deal is due. But I must say, if that’s the date then someone must be doing a heck of a job if we already have a top 5 prospects pool sans rebuilt

Early picks are almost always the best picks. This is not being refuted. This is also why the pool is tracking well. The team has been abysmally run and as a result are drafting really high. Those high picks yield high end talent. That said, this discussion is about the value forgone. You say that extra picks are optional. I disagree. So we'll test this theory. Please answer the following questions:

1. Is the draft the _best_ place to acquire future core players?

2. Does having more picks increase the likelihood that an NHL player will result from the draft?

If you answered yes to both, then adding picks are not optional for a rebuilding team. If you said no to either, please explain your rationale.

 

[Canucks1096]

It's not a rebuild because you can do the same thing as a retooling club. What would be the distinction in that case?

Rebuilding is a ground up approach with intention. You have limited that intention to just getting a "young core" without regard to the quality of that core or the volume of that core. Essentially, you are saying that it's enough to do just enough, and classify that as rebuilding. Where as other are saying that it has to be an all encompassing mode because team assets are limited and the prime rebuilding assets are always picks. Leveraging those assets to procure picks is the main goal. Why? Because the draft is the best place to acquire future core assets.

This is a step by step logical walk through of a rebuild. Yes, you can sometimes trade draft picks for 20 year old gambles. Yes, you can sign long term deals. You can even sign FAs. But if you do all of this and still do not prioritize the draft, you are not rebuilding.





Any answer to the above?

Yes it is a rebuild.

When you are retooling you are making minor adjustment. You are not starting from scratch like a rebuild. Hugh difference.

No I am just giving my definition of a rebuild. Of course when you are doing this approach. You are thinking that this approah will lead to a cup in the future. Just because there not acquiring more picks it doesn't mean there not prioritize the draft. If you look at any rebuild the most important part is getting your 1st round pick right. Can you name any rebuild teams that got a draft pick from another team and that pick turned Into a main core player. Not Hawks Pitsburg Jets or Lighting.

With the secondary core. There is No evidences that show it better to draft them instead or trading or free agent. If you have some evidence please show me?

Jets rebuild was they kept there core of Buff Little Wheeler and loss Ladd for nothing and got all there 1st round picks right Schefiele Morrisey Laine Connor Ehlers Trouba. Jets didn't load up on picks. So I guess Jets didn't rebuild base on your argument. Many sports writers will think they did a great job at reporting

I gave my answer. My Harold Druken example was my answer to those questions

 

[Bleach Clean]

Yes it is a rebuild.

When you are retooling you are making minor adjustment. You are not starting from scratch like a rebuild. Hugh difference.

No I am just giving my definition of a rebuild. Of course when you are doing this approach. You are thinking that this approah will lead to a cup in the future. Just because there not acquiring more picks it doesn't mean there not prioritize the draft. If you look at any rebuild the most important part is getting your 1st round pick right. Can you name any rebuild teams that got a draft pick from another team and that pick turned Into a main core player. Not Hawks Pitsburg Jets or Lighting.

With the secondary core. There is No evidences that show it better to draft them instead or trading or free agent. If you have some evidence please show me?

Jets rebuild was they kept there core of Buff Little Wheeler and loss Ladd for nothing and got all there 1st round picks right Schefiele Morrisey Laine Connor Ehlers Trouba. Jets didn't load up on picks. So I guess Jets didn't rebuild base on your argument. Many sports writers will think they did a great job at reporting

I gave my answer. My Harold Druken example was my answer to those questions

Your answer is insufficient because if Goldobin fails to secure a spot during camp, the notion will be that he wasn't able to "continue on", even when you deemed him to be ready during the 2nd half of last year. If he's ready, he should get more than a camp, no?

With the rest of your post, I think your examples are so off course that I can't really address them in a manner which would lead this conversation anywhere. We would be talking about them instead of the heart of the issue. So to address your points as they are:

1. Your definition of a rebuild is irrelevant. We are trying to identify the traditional mode of a rebuild, independent of our personal definitions.
2. How does a team prioritize a draft without working to add picks or move up in the draft?
3. Getting a pick "right" is something every team tries to do.
4. No evidence to show that it's better for a team to draft a core player instead of trading for one or signing one as a free agent? Are you serious? For evidence, I can list multiple core player trades that involved one or more high draft picks, thereby proving that if said team had drafted a core player with the pick given up, it would be cheaper than having to pay for said player. Would that suffice?

I don't understand how someone in this day and age can possibly devalue depth picks the way you have here. Effectively, you are saying players like Bieksa, Hansen, Cooke, Edler, Raymond etc... were no more valuable than similar players garnered via FA or through trade, knowing that FAs get paid a premium and trades deplete the organization of assets. This is an untenable position. If you want to categorize these opinions as being untrue while you hold such a false perception yourself, it highlights why you are going to find no agreement here.

 

[Canucks1096]

Your answer is insufficient because if Goldobin fails to secure a spot during camp, the notion will be that he wasn't able to "continue on", even when you deemed him to be ready during the 2nd half of last year. If he's ready, he should get more than a camp, no?

With the rest of your post, I think your examples are so off course that I can't really address them in a manner which would lead this conversation anywhere. We would be talking about them instead of the heart of the issue. So to address your points as they are:

1. Your definition of a rebuild is irrelevant. We are trying to identify the traditional mode of a rebuild, independent of our personal definitions.
2. How does a team prioritize a draft without working to add picks or move up in the draft?
3. Getting a pick "right" is something every team tries to do.
4. No evidence to show that it's better for a team to draft a core player instead of trading for one or signing one as a free agent? Are you serious? For evidence, I can list multiple core player trades that involved one or more high draft picks, thereby proving that if said team had drafted a core player with the pick given up, it would be cheaper than having to pay for said player. Would that suffice?

I don't understand how someone in this day and age can possibly devalue depth picks the way you have here. Effectively, you are saying players like Bieksa, Hansen, Cooke, Edler, Raymond etc... were no more valuable than similar players garnered via FA or through trade, knowing that FAs get paid a premium and trades deplete the organization of assets. This is an untenable position. If you want to categorize these opinions as being untrue while you hold such a false perception yourself, it highlights why you are going to find no agreement here.

So when a player seem ready to play in the nhl. No players ever takes a step back. Vey Virtanen Macann Druken all seem ready from the start. Then all faded a way. I don't make up the rule when you are still a young player and if you don't perform in training camp. Somebody will take your spot.

1 we are still giving our opinion what a traditional rebuild is. It's not black and white. No other situation when a team slowly move out all their Vets and try to start new young one. The only situation is a rebuild.

2/3 When you start shipping vets out and not replacing the core with Vets. The results will show in the standings. You are prioritize the draft when you do that. The main part of the rebuild is once you shio out the vets and start showing in the standings. You get those high picks. Every rebuild main part comes from those picks. If you get those picks 70% of your rebuild is accomplished already. The rest lineup can come through later rounds, trades or free agency

4 I said main Core. Main core is The Crosby Toews Laine Kane. Those type of players the original team draft pick was use to get those players.

Canucks got Burrows Sam Hamhuis Manny Ehrhoff Torres in trades and FA. I think this group was better than Bieksa Edler Hansen Raymond Cooke

I am not saying thilse lower picks are not better than trades and Free agency but the results don't really show it.

Hawks is the perfect example of a rebuild. Kane Toews Seabrook Keith all were drafted as the main core with their own picks.. Trades for struggling young player Ladd Sharp Versteeg. Got some picks from the later Rounds Hjalmarrsson Buff Bolland. FA Campbell . Big trade Havlat and then used money for Hossa. So th Hawks examples proves that to finish the rebuild they used every method to get those players.

Jets Leafs Oilers have no main core players that wasn't a 1st round pick or trade or free agency

What you are saying about draft picks make sense. But what seem to make sense doesn't mean it's true. Why don't analyze every past rebuild and look at the main and secondary core. How many of those came from a lower pick vs Trades/free agency. Not many

Don't get me wrong I am not saying picks are not important but its not necessary to stacked your team with a few later picks. Those few later picks might turned into one more middle 6 wingers

 

[tantalum]

The draft is important...both sides agree. To get the best impact you want more picks. That doesn’t need some sort of proof as it’s clearly obvious that no scouting group has ever managed to remove unpredictability of player development.

So yes, drafting isn’t the be all and end all. No one says otherwise. It is however a significant part of a rebuild and the evidence suggests the canucks truly haven’t treated it as such.

You are also correct that a team needs to make other moves along with drafting. And so we have come to the crux of the matter. Those skeptical of Benning have never said anything different. Indeed that’s the problem. Not only has he minimized the perceived strength he might have with drafting he is incapable of that other stuff. So the rebuild is very much stuck in neutral, or first gear at best.

 

[arttk]

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.

Ok let’s try this one again. You said Stecher beat out Larsen when they played together. Like I said before, Stecher didn’t play until Tanev was out in late Oct and oh your thing about Larsen being sat. Larsen missed Nov not because he was healthy scratched but because he had an undisclosed illness Philip Larsen, ,
and then he returned after Edler was injured. he then suffered an injury that took him to the hospital and then missed a whole bunch of games.
Stecher didn’t beat Larsen, injuries beat Larsen. Stecher also manages to ride a wave of alternating injuries to Tanev, Edler, Larsen and Gubranson and got his opportunity because we were down at least one or two RHD for the majority of the season.

 

[me2]

Yup, Van will likely have extra picks this year but it will be a product of hosting and the fact that Edler/Tanev deal is due. But I must say, if that’s the date then someone must be doing a heck of a job if we already have a top 5 prospects pool sans rebuilt

The obvious answer is Benning is doing a terrible job, hence all the incompetent bottom of table finishes while trying to make the playoffs. The scouts are saving his ass.

 

[Canucks1096]

Ok let’s try this one again. You said Stecher beat out Larsen when they played together. Like I said before, Stecher didn’t play until Tanev was out in late Oct and oh your thing about Larsen being sat. Larsen missed Nov not because he was healthy scratched but because he had an undisclosed illness Philip Larsen, ,
and then he returned after Edler was injured. he then suffered an injury that took him to the hospital and then missed a whole bunch of games.
Stecher didn’t beat Larsen, injuries beat Larsen. Stecher also manages to ride a wave of alternating injuries to Tanev, Edler, Larsen and Gubranson and got his opportunity because we were down at least one or two RHD for the majority of the season.

Player News

Go down to Nov 8. Larsen healthy scratch replace by Stecher.

Player News

Stecher called up. So Larsen was healthy and Stecher called up to replace him.

Look at the ice time as well. When Stecher in the lineup. He gets the top pairing time. Larsen bottom pairing. That MEANS Stecher is higher on the depth chart.

So is this enough evidence that Stecher wasn't in the lineup anymore because of injuries?

 

[Bleach Clean]

So when a player seem ready to play in the nhl. No players ever takes a step back. Vey Virtanen Macann Druken all seem ready from the start. Then all faded a way. I don't make up the rule when you are still a young player and if you don't perform in training camp. Somebody will take your spot.

That somebody that will take Goldobin's spot will be a 4th liner by default. That's the point. By stacking the deck against Goldobin, a mediocre camp could see him bumped off the roster. Where as a mediocre camp with 3 less 4th liners to compete with gives him a much better chance to make it regardless.

If he's ready, he shouldn't face that kind of road block. He's 22. He should be given rope. Especially when you take into account that a lot of mistakes are made by reactionary coaches based upon a short camp sample. This is why signing these players is foolish.

1 we are still giving our opinion what a traditional rebuild is. It's not black and white. No other situation when a team slowly move out all their Vets and try to start new young one. The only situation is a rebuild.

2/3 When you start shipping vets out and not replacing the core with Vets. The results will show in the standings. You are prioritize the draft when you do that. The main part of the rebuild is once you shio out the vets and start showing in the standings. You get those high picks. Every rebuild main part comes from those picks. If you get those picks 70% of your rebuild is accomplished already. The rest lineup can come through later rounds, trades or free agency

4 I said main Core. Main core is The Crosby Toews Laine Kane. Those type of players the original team draft pick was use to get those players.

1. The priority on the draft is black and white. This is the hallmark of a rebuild. Without it, there's no unique identifier. The other situation is called a re-tool. With your rationale, DET was rebuilding for 20 years while in the playoffs. Makes absolutely no sense.

2. Not so, team state is only 1 part of what constitutes a rebuild. The other is management action. DET cycled out vets while competing. They didn't sink to the basement. Were they rebuilding? If DET was instead a bubble team, mid-pack, would that be a rebuild?

3. You're still treating depth picks as interchangeable to trades and free agency. They are not and never were.

4. Was Hansen core here? Bieksa? Edler? If yes, then you're "main core" sub-argument is moot. Core is core. Whether it's from the depth rounds or the 1st round.

Canucks got Burrows Sam Hamhuis Manny Ehrhoff Torres in trades and FA. I think this group was better than Bieksa Edler Hansen Raymond Cooke

I am not saying thilse lower picks are not better than trades and Free agency but the results don't really show it.

Hawks is the perfect example of a rebuild. Kane Toews Seabrook Keith all were drafted as the main core with their own picks.. Trades for struggling young player Ladd Sharp Versteeg. Got some picks from the later Rounds Hjalmarrsson Buff Bolland. FA Campbell . Big trade Havlat and then used money for Hossa. So th Hawks examples proves that to finish the rebuild they used every method to get those players.

Jets Leafs Oilers have no main core players that wasn't a 1st round pick or trade or free agency

What you are saying about draft picks make sense. But what seem to make sense doesn't mean it's true. Why don't analyze every past rebuild and look at the main and secondary core. How many of those came from a lower pick vs Trades/free agency. Not many

Don't get me wrong I am not saying picks are not important but its not necessary to stacked your team with a few later picks. Those few later picks might turned into one more middle 6 wingers

Or they may turn into a #2 Dman like Edler, or a #2/#3 like Bieksa. You don't know... and that's the power of a draft pick.

You're saying some pretty perplexing things here:

1. You tout Keith as a "main core" player -- He was a late 2nd round pick. You knew this right?

2. You acknowledge the importance of draft picks, but that importance may or may not be true? What?

3. You're not saying that lower picks are better than Trades or FA, but the results don't show it? The Caps had 13 players on their SC team that were either drafted or came up exclusively through their system to become regulars. I believe the Kings had 13. The Hawks must have had around the same number. This isn't news. Drafting is critical to creating a dominant team. Every other method is a complement to it, not a replacement for it.

Burrows, Samuelsson, Hamhuis, Manny, Ehrhoff, Torres may be better than Bieksa, Edler, Hansen, Raymond, Cooke, as a whole, but this is not the point. The point is that the first group is leagues away in matching the value the latter group provided to the franchise. Everything from playing on ELCs, to having non-inflated contracts, to the avoidance of having to pay for those pieces in other ways. Even waiting for Hamhuis until he was 28 years old, or having to leverage cap space against SJ to get Ehrhoff or only getting access to Samuelsson once his best years were done in DET. Once you acknowledge these caveats/challenges, then you will understand that there is no argument that justifies FA or trade acquisitions over drafting. Drafting is _always_ preferred. Always.

 

[Canucks1096]

That somebody that will take Goldobin's spot will be a 4th liner by default. That's the point. By stacking the deck against Goldobin, a mediocre camp could see him bumped off the roster. Where as a mediocre camp with 3 less 4th liners to compete with gives him a much better chance to make it regardless.

If he's ready, he shouldn't face that kind of road block. He's 22. He should be given rope. Especially when you take into account that a lot of mistakes are made by reactionary coaches based upon a short camp sample. This is why signing these players is foolish.





1. The priority on the draft is black and white. This is the hallmark of a rebuild. Without it, there's no unique identifier. The other situation is called a re-tool. With your rationale, DET was rebuilding for 20 years while in the playoffs. Makes absolutely no sense.

2. Not so, team state is only 1 part of what constitutes a rebuild. The other is management action. DET cycled out vets while competing. They didn't sink to the basement. Were they rebuilding? If DET was instead a bubble team, mid-pack, would that be a rebuild?

3. You're still treating depth picks as interchangeable to trades and free agency. They are not and never were.

4. Was Hansen core here? Bieksa? Edler? If yes, then you're "main core" sub-argument is moot. Core is core. Whether it's from the depth rounds or the 1st round.





Or they may turn into a #2 Dman like Edler, or a #2/#3 like Bieksa. You don't know... and that's the power of a draft pick.

You're saying some pretty perplexing things here:

1. You tout Keith as a "main core" player -- He was a late 2nd round pick. You knew this right?

2. You acknowledge the importance of draft picks, but that importance may or may not be true? What?

3. You're not saying that lower picks are better than Trades or FA, but the results don't show it? The Caps had 13 players on their SC team that were either drafted or came up exclusively through their system to become regulars. I believe the Kings had 13. The Hawks must have had around the same number. This isn't news. Drafting is critical to creating a dominant team. Every other method is a complement to it, not a replacement for it.

Burrows, Samuelsson, Hamhuis, Manny, Ehrhoff, Torres may be better than Bieksa, Edler, Hansen, Raymond, Cooke, as a whole, but this is not the point. The point is that the first group is leagues away in matching the value the latter group provided to the franchise. Everything from playing on ELCs, to having non-inflated contracts, to the avoidance of having to pay for those pieces in other ways. Even waiting for Hamhuis until he was 28 years old, or having to leverage cap space against SJ to get Ehrhoff or only getting access to Samuelsson once his best years were done in DET. Once you acknowledge these caveats/challenges, then you will understand that there is no argument that justifies FA or trade acquisitions over drafting. Drafting is _always_ preferred. Always.

Even Keith was a second round pick. Hawks used their own 2nd round pick. They didn't get Keith because They had a lot of picks that year and lucky with him.

If Goldobin was ready he should have no problem making the team then.

Zetterberg and Datsyuk was add it to the existing core of Yzerman Shanahan Fedorov and Hull first. Wings didn't dump everyone when Zetterberg and Datsyuk came. That was considered a retool

Hugh difference main core is the top elite players. Those players you need to draft. Secondary core is like a Hansen. A Hansen you can trade and get it in free agent.

No no no we are talking about draft picks. Players that came through the system has nothing to do with draft. Those should not be use in your argument. So if you are treating those non draft picks.that came up the system like draft picks. that means Baer Granlund and Goldobin and Dahlen I can considered them as draft picks as well.

So the last 10 to 15 years some teams that went on a rebuild Hawks Kings Pens Leafs Jets Tampa Oilers. So tell me the extra picks that these teams got in trades. What are some good players that these teams got with those picks?

 

[y2kcanucks]

Even Keith was a second round pick. Hawks used their own 2nd round pick. They didn't get Keith because They had a lot of picks that year and lucky with him.

If Goldobin was ready he should have no problem making the team then.

Zetterberg and Datsyuk was add it to the existing core of Yzerman Shanahan Fedorov and Hull first. Wings didn't dump everyone when Zetterberg and Datsyuk came. That was considered a retool

Hugh difference main core is the top elite players. Those players you need to draft. Secondary core is like a Hansen. A Hansen you can trade and get it in free agent.

No no no we are talking about draft picks. Players that came through the system has nothing to do with draft. Those should not be use in your argument. So if you are treating those non draft picks.that came up the system like draft picks. that means Baer Granlund and Goldobin and Dahlen I can considered them as draft picks as well.

So the last 10 to 15 years some teams that went on a rebuild Hawks Kings Pens Leafs Jets Tampa Oilers. So tell me the extra picks that these teams got in trades. What are some good players that these teams got with those picks?

Who sits for Goldobin?

In 2004 when the Hawks had an awful season, they had 14 picks in the first 7 rounds. They were rebuilding and stockpiled draft picks.

Wings are rebuilding even though they have Zetterberg on the roster. They aren't "pushing for the playoffs" because they feel they "owe it" to him. Unlike Benning.

You keep arguing that the Canucks are rebuilding yet you continue to ignore the facts. At first it was funny, then it became annoying, now it's just sad.

 

[member 290103]

It's stupid to even ask the question. Nothing they do indicates it's a rebuild.

 

[nuck luck]

When a GM decides to rebuild. They are pretty much getting rid of the old core and/or getting rid secondary core as well. First few years they were retooling but as of 2016/2017 they did decide to rebuild. Look at this list of player Sedins Kesler Burrows Higgins Hansen Bieksa Garrison Hamhuis Edler Tanev. Each one of these they try move from younger assets. Either some players didn't waive their ntc, Canucks traded for younger assets or that player had no value or they try move that player but the offer wasn't there anymore. So with the old guys out, now Benning is building a new core that will have Boeser Horvat Pettersson Dahlen Gaudette Hughes Juolevi. There were no reports that Canucks went after scorer. That means there giving the young guy a chance to.be main core. How in the world is this not a rebuild? Just because Benning made some horrible moves it doesn't mean there not rebuilding. Looking at the results of a trade than determining it's not a rebuild because trade didn't work out doesn't make any sense.

This myth about rebuilding teams don't go after struggling early 20 year old is non sense. Look at Hawks they add it 3 struggling early 20 year old as part of their rebuild Sharp, Versteeg, Ladd.

The user that said Kesler trade is not rebuild move is ridiculous. There was a YouTube video where all the management was talking about the Kesler trade. Benning indicate he thinks Sbisa will be a top 4 D in 3yrs. They didn't expect Sbisa to made impact right away but 3 years from now. Benning got it wrong with sbisa but its still doesn't change the fact he was thinking of the future when the made that trade.

so you think that any trade where the acquired player is younger in age， this equates to a rebuild？ is it that simple？

btw，your arguments for a rebuild make no sense at all. None whatsoever.

Your last paragraph regarding Kesler and Sbisa...the only statement you got right is that Benning got it wrong.

The ridiculous part is how you came to your conclusion. To break it down in simple terms...any trade where a GM believes a player hasnt tapped his potential proves that a team is rebuilding.

In your own words...any move a GM makes where he considers future ramifications proves that the GM is rebuilding. ok...

 

[Canucks1096]

so you think that any trade where the acquired player is younger in age， this equates to a rebuild？ is it that simple？

btw，your arguments for a rebuild make no sense at all. None whatsoever.

Your last paragraph regarding Kesler and Sbisa...the only statement you got right is that Benning got it wrong.

The ridiculous part is how you came to your conclusion. To break it down in simple terms...any trade where a GM believes a player hasnt tapped his potential proves that a team is rebuilding.

In your own words...any move a GM makes where he considers future ramifications proves that the GM is rebuilding. ok...

So what would a Kesler trade look like if it was a strictly a rebuild trade?

 

[Canucks1096]

Who sits for Goldobin?

In 2004 when the Hawks had an awful season, they had 14 picks in the first 7 rounds. They were rebuilding and stockpiled draft picks.

Wings are rebuilding even though they have Zetterberg on the roster. They aren't "pushing for the playoffs" because they feel they "owe it" to him. Unlike Benning.

You keep arguing that the Canucks are rebuilding yet you continue to ignore the facts. At first it was funny, then it became annoying, now it's just sad.

You mean generalization and not facts. Like How you generalize and said there bringing many Vets and blocking young players from playing. You can't even tell me what young players the Vets Blocked? Also when you were generalizing and said every year Canucks try to load and make the playoffs. This off season did they didn't even sign any big name scorers. Do you really think Benning thinks he will get in the playoffs with 4th liners? 2015 they only signed Bartkowski as a free agent. 2017 they didn't sign any long term contract and just stop gap contracts.

You have admit that long first post that you wrote a few weeks ago. Half of it was just generalization. I think that's just your way of showing people that you don't like Benning.

 

[y2kcanucks]

You mean generalization and not facts. Like How you generalize and said there bringing many Vets and blocking young players from playing. You can't even tell me what young players the Vets Blocked? Also when you were generalizing and said every year Canucks try to load and make the playoffs. This off season did they didn't even sign any big name scorers. Do you really think Benning thinks he will get in the playoffs with 4th liners? 2015 they only signed Bartkowski as a free agent. 2017 they didn't sign any long term contract and just stop gap contracts.

You have admit that long first post that you wrote a few weeks ago. Half of it was just generalization. I think that's just your way of showing people that you don't like Benning.

Except I did and you ignored it (Stecher). And for this year there's no room for Goldobin, Leipsic, Dahlen. Or really no room for Hughes or Juolevi. And MDZ's signing seems to have hurt Hutton's development.

No, they didn't sign any big name scorers, but they did sign two veterans to long-term contracts with bloated salaries. There's more to trying to make the playoffs than who they sign in free agency. In 2015 they kept the aging veteran Ryan Miller and traded Lack instead, and they traded for Brandon Sutter. They also traded for Prust. Benning said numerous times he felt he had a playoff team. 2017 they signed several veterans as well. Some (Gagner) to a 3-year contract. That's medium term.

That long first post I wrote a few weeks ago was based on reality. Just because that reality isn't compatible with the narrative you want to portray doesn't mean it's any less real.

 

[Canucks1096]

Except I did and you ignored it (Stecher). And for this year there's no room for Goldobin, Leipsic, Dahlen. Or really no room for Hughes or Juolevi. And MDZ's signing seems to have hurt Hutton's development.

No, they didn't sign any big name scorers, but they did sign two veterans to long-term contracts with bloated salaries. There's more to trying to make the playoffs than who they sign in free agency. In 2015 they kept the aging veteran Ryan Miller and traded Lack instead, and they traded for Brandon Sutter. They also traded for Prust. Benning said numerous times he felt he had a playoff team. 2017 they signed several veterans as well. Some (Gagner) to a 3-year contract. That's medium term.

That long first post I wrote a few weeks ago was based on reality. Just because that reality isn't compatible with the narrative you want to portray doesn't mean it's any less real.

But on your first post you wrote every year they bring many Vets and leave no room for young player. So where is the evidences for 2014 2015 and 2017. 2018 season didn't come yet. Why dont we wait and see. I Can give you Stecher but only 1o% of the season. Since Nov of that season towards he was playing top 6 regardless of Injuries.

Hutton 2nd in mins among D for the first 2 to 3 months of the season. He was playing solid than after Dec something happened. So first 3 months MDZ didn't hurt Hutton development but the last 3 months he did?

What is Benning suppose to say? Is he suppose tell everyone I expect to lose every game this year?

Gagner was for 3yrs because Canucks didn't think Pettersson will be ready until 3 years later. That is still considered a stop gap contract. MDZ was a stop gap for Juolevi and Burmistrov was for 1yr because of Gaudette. This was mention by tsn radio.