The Rebuild Started...

[Bojack Horvatman]

Few things:

1) Leipsic was used in an “energy” role in Vegas and was uselesss. When he come here however, he showed pretty good promise. Guys like Granlund and Goldobin have also been useless on the bottom 6.

2) And yes - my lineup has no Goldobin or Granlund. Granlund isn’t good enough, plain and simple. Goldobin makes my line-up IF he has a terrific camp. As of this writing right now however, Goldobin has proven that he’s not worthy. His defensive game has massive holes in it. That’s the difference between Benning and the “JD Burke crew.” “The crew” wants roster spots to be gifted to youngsters, while Benning wants kids to earn their roster spots.........and to place kids in roles that are best suited to their development, be that it Vancouver, juniors, or Utica.

Guys like Horvat, Boeser, Baertschi, and Markstrom all flat out earned their spots. After a rough start to his career, Virtanen started to earn his stripes.

3) what do you think would be better for Dahlen? Getting top 6 minutes in Utica where he’d get tons of ice-time and be placed in an environment where he’d be conditioned to being “the go to guy,” or playing in the NHL in some useless “energy” role with limited minutes, playing alongside Sutter or Beagle?

Also - I would have Quinn Hughes in my line-up this year along with Pettersson (assuming Hughes has a good camp).

Under my system, all of Juolevi, Lind, Dahlen, Gadjovich, etc, would go to Utica, get tons of ice time, play important roles, and help Utica go deep into the playoffs. Get experience ‘going deep’ at the AHL level. But hey - if that equates to “the kids being held back,” then perhaps you and “the JD Burke crew” simply don’t understand what a rebuild entails. There is something to be said about letting kids cook and ripen in the farm.

Sending kids to Utica to is not the problem. You don't need to fill an already crowded team with overpaid fourth liners with term to do that

 

[RobertKron]

For f*** sakes, they already have a matchup centre. They basically bought high on low-roster forwards, which was pretty much this lineup’s closest thing to a position of strength.

If they wanted to insulate the kids and bring them along slowly, they’d seek out a decent offensively creative forward or two who isn’t garbage, and can help the kids weather the inevitable ups and downs.

What they’ve done instead is establish a scenario where young players will have to carry the offense on their backs, night-in and night-out - against other teams’ best defensive players - because there basically aren’t any players with more than a couple years of NHL experience in this forward group who don’t have stumps for hands.

 

[Canucks1096]

Cause Benning has been soooooooo good at retaining and developing talent. He has driven this team to the bottom of the league and yet you still defend him....

This thread is not about if Benning is a good GM. This thread is about when the Canucks started to rebuild.

 

[pgj98m3]

This thread is not about if Benning is a good GM. This thread is about when the Canucks started to rebuild.

Which hasn’t happened cause Lindenning is so inept...what’s your point? Other than just more deflection.

 

[Canucks1096]

Doesn't surprise me you're lost considering you think that acquiring draft picks is bad.

While I see acquiring older prospects like Goldobin as Leipsic as more of a re-tool type of move (and not a pure rebuilding move) I still loathe the fact that Benning is filling up the team with veterans and not giving any of these young players a chance.

But hey, you can keep thinking that bringing in Jay Beagle and Antoine Roussel = we're rebuilding. It's laughable and you're wrong, but you don't seem to care about reality.

I never once said getting picks are bad but its not necessary to stacked picks instead of adding a prospect. There is really not much of a difference with getting a prospect vs getting a later picks. Sure more later picks equal a better chance But the chances that you actually take advantage of that is still very slim. That's why getting a prospect vs a pick is not much of a difference. Tampa Pens Jets all stacked picks but that wasn't the reason why They became good. If evidences show that you don't need stacked picks to become a top team than its not necessary to get a pick instead of prospect.

It's just silly Benning at times like to acquire prospects instead of Pickd so he is not rebuilding because of that.

You didn't answer my question yet. You even said Dahlen was the only good trade. Which indicates you are nit high in Goldobin and Liepsic.

So if you are not high on them. Why do you want them part of the rebuild? So having a players you are not high on and in the lineup helps with the rebuild?

 

[Canucks1096]

Hindustan Smyl what are you rambling on about? Benning and co. have set the Canucks back by constantly trying to be competitive instead of tearing it up, hence consistently throwing away draft picks. Leipsic will be the 13th forward as Granlund has been given a one year show me contract with the opportunity to play on the top 9 (radio interview). Gaunce, Leipsic, Goldobin, Motte, Dahlen, Gaudette are all out thanks to veterans like Gagner, Erickkson, Beagle, Roussel, Sutter etc. plugging up roster spots. What about the defence? If Juolevi and Hughes impress at camp how is Dim going to make room with Edler, Del Zotto, Hutton, Pouliot occupying roster spots? It baffles me that some individuals still back the Benning regime blindly.

Benning inherited a stale core according to Torts. Kesler Burrows Sedins Edler Bieksa Gairrson Hamhuis Weber Hansen Higgins.

All the players they try to move.

Sedins Edler didn't want to waive no trade clause

Higgins Weber had no value

Hansen Burrows Kesler Bieksa all were traded

Hamhuis left as a UFA. Benning did try to move him he was too late. This was Benning fault however Hamhuis only gave two teams Chicago and Dallas. Dallas was interested in Russel and Chicago traded the 1st for Ladd already. Not Sure if Chicago even made another offer to Hamhuis

So technically they did try to tear it down but it wasn't right away.

 

[pgj98m3]

Benning inherited a stale core according to Torts. Kesler Burrows Sedins Edler Bieksa Gairrson Hamhuis Weber Hansen Higgins.

All the players they try to move.

Sedins Edler didn't want to waive no trade clause

Higgins Weber had no value

Hansen Burrows Kesler Bieksa all were traded

Hamhuis left as a UFA. Benning did try to move him he was too late. This was Benning fault however Hamhuis only gave two teams Chicago and Dallas. Dallas was interested in Russel and Chicago traded the 1st for Ladd already. Not Sure if Chicago even made another offer to Hamhuis

So technically they did try to tear it down but it wasn't right away.

So what is the excuse now?????

 

[racerjoe]

Benning inherited a stale core according to Torts. Kesler Burrows Sedins Edler Bieksa Gairrson Hamhuis Weber Hansen Higgins.

All the players they try to move.

Sedins Edler didn't want to waive no trade clause

Higgins Weber had no value

Hansen Burrows Kesler Bieksa all were traded

Hamhuis left as a UFA. Benning did try to move him he was too late. This was Benning fault however Hamhuis only gave two teams Chicago and Dallas. Dallas was interested in Russel and Chicago traded the 1st for Ladd already. Not Sure if Chicago even made another offer to Hamhuis

So technically they did try to tear it down but it wasn't right away.

Did you seriously just call Weber a core piece? That is pretty funny. Almost as funny as your constant terrible excuses.

 

[Canucks1096]

Did you seriously just call Weber a core piece? That is pretty funny. Almost as funny as your constant terrible excuses.

I just listed a bunch of players that Gillis inherited. I did write Weber has no value. If I thought he was main core I would think he has some value.

Btw do you still think Archibald is some kind prospect that's not getting a chance because of Vet? Correction he is not getting a chance because he is not a good player. Also 28 year old. There is no such thing as a 28 year old prospect.

What excuses am I making?

 

[racerjoe]

I just listed a bunch of players that Gillis inherited. I did write Weber has no value. If I thought he was main core I would think he has some value.

Btw do you still think Archibald is some kind prospect that's not getting a chance because of Vet? Correction he is not getting a chance because he is not a good player. Also 28 year old. There is no such thing as a 28 year old prospect.

What excuses am I making?

Then don’t write that he is a core piece.

I think he is a home grown talent that is better then a few that will make the team.

Excuses in your last post were 2 team trade list, and trying to minimize the hamhuis screw up, adding the twins to the list of players that wouldn’t waive when we really have no idea as they were clearly never asked.

That’s just your last post though.

 

[me2]

I never once said getting picks are bad but its not necessary to stacked picks instead of adding a prospect. There is really not much of a difference with getting a prospect vs getting a later picks. Sure more later picks equal a better chance But the chances that you actually take advantage of that is still very slim. That's why getting a prospect vs a pick is not much of a difference. Tampa Pens Jets all stacked picks but that wasn't the reason why They became good. If evidences show that you don't need stacked picks to become a top team than its not necessary to get a pick instead of prospect.

It's just silly Benning at times like to acquire prospects instead of Pickd so he is not rebuilding because of that.

You didn't answer my question yet. You even said Dahlen was the only good trade. Which indicates you are nit high in Goldobin and Liepsic.

So if you are not high on them. Why do you want them part of the rebuild? So having a players you are not high on and in the lineup helps with the rebuild?

You keep confusing rebuilding with missing the playoffs. Non-rebuilding teams trade away UFAs and older players at the deadline too. Jim was not rebuilding he just missed the playoffs.

 

[Canucks1096]

Then don’t write that he is a core piece.

I think he is a home grown talent that is better then a few that will make the team.

Excuses in your last post were 2 team trade list, and trying to minimize the hamhuis screw up, adding the twins to the list of players that wouldn’t waive when we really have no idea as they were clearly never asked.

That’s just your last post though.

I didn't write he was a main core. First sentence I wrote the team had a stale core. Second sentence I wrote bunch of players Benning try to trade. I wasn't indicating this was the core. However I can see why you would think that. The sentence was a little confusing.

How is it excuse. I even wrote this is Benning fault. Naming facts is not excuses. He did waive for two teams only.

The report was they had a discussion and Sedins wanted to stay

Fyi. It does take two tango. Actually three both GMs and the player with the ntc.

The fact is Gillis give ntc like they are candy.

 

[Canucks1096]

You keep confusing rebuilding with missing the playoffs. Non-rebuilding teams trade away UFAs and older players at the deadline too. Jim was not rebuilding he just missed the playoffs.

Can you send me the rule book on definition of a rebuild? You probably don't have one. If you don't have, this is just your personal opinion. You are getting confuse with your personal opinion and facts. If you look every rebuild that happened. Every one of them was not exactly the same. Which means there not just one way to rebuild.

Yeah but non rebuilding teams don't try tk get rid of there whole entire core within a few years and try to build brand new young core. Edler is still there because he doesn't want to waive his ntc.

Non rebuilding teams don't ask so many Vets to waive their ntc.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Can you send me the rule book on definition of a rebuild? You probably don't have one. If you don't have, this is just your personal opinion. You are getting confuse with your personal opinion and facts. If you look every rebuild that happened. Every one of them was not exactly the same. Which means there not just one way to rebuild.

The issue here is your analysis Canucks1096. If you don't see an exact duplicate, then you dismiss all commonalities. It's a major error in your perception. True rebuilds do not need to be exact copies of past rebuilds. I'm not even sure how that would be possible? They just need to show commonalities, and one major common component to all true rebuilds is the emphasis on the draft. Particularly, selling assets to get picks.

The other error you are making is in treating all opinions as valid... they are not. The opinion that espouses the commonalities in a rebuild actually is grounded in what is already known in the hockey community. Media types know what the word "rebuild" means. That's why it was such a point of contention between them and Lindenning. The media knows that a rebuild refers to draft picks, sell offs, bad seasons and prospect development. That's why each media personality doesn't redefine a rebuild every time he mentions the word... Which is akin to you stating that each interpretation of a rebuild is an opinion. There is a general opinion of what a rebuild is... and it's not what you are expressing.

 

[racerjoe]

I didn't write he was a main core. First sentence I wrote the team had a stale core. Second sentence I wrote bunch of players Benning try to trade. I wasn't indicating this was the core. However I can see why you would think that. The sentence was a little confusing.

How is it excuse. I even wrote this is Benning fault. Naming facts is not excuses. He did waive for two teams only.

The report was they had a discussion and Sedins wanted to stay

Fyi. It does take two tango. Actually three both GMs and the player with the ntc.

The fact is Gillis give ntc like they are candy.

Sure let’s just move the goal posts... either way, Benning signed Weber or I should say re-signed Weber... so how is he on the old guard?

You are right it can take time to build a market for a guy with a Ntc so maybe starting earlier would have been better. The Ladd deal was offered to us first by the way.

 

[Canucks1096]

Sure let’s just move the goal posts... either way, Benning signed Weber or I should say re-signed Weber... so how is he on the old guard?

You are right it can take time to build a market for a guy with a Ntc so maybe starting earlier would have been better. The Ladd deal was offered to us first by the way.

For the 3rd time I did say it was Benning fault on the Hamhuis situation. Fyi it's not possible to have argument when you agree with someone. I agree with was Benning fault. But the fact is he only had 2 teams to work with

 

[Canucks1096]

The issue here is your analysis Canucks1096. If you don't see an exact duplicate, then you dismiss all commonalities. It's a major error in your perception. True rebuilds do not need to be exact copies of past rebuilds. I'm not even sure how that would be possible? They just need to show commonalities, and one major common component to all true rebuilds is the emphasis on the draft. Particularly, selling assets to get picks.

The other error you are making is in treating all opinions as valid... they are not. The opinion that espouses the commonalities in a rebuild actually is grounded in what is already known in the hockey community. Media types know what the word "rebuild" means. That's why it was such a point of contention between them and Lindenning. The media knows that a rebuild refers to draft picks, sell offs, bad seasons and prospect development. That's why each media personality doesn't redefine a rebuild every time he mentions the word... Which is akin to you stating that each interpretation of a rebuild is an opinion. There is a general opinion of what a rebuild is... and it's not what you are expressing.

One question. Do you think Media think the Canucks are rebuilding. Yes or No?

 

[Bleach Clean]

One question. Do you think Media think the Canucks are rebuilding. Yes or No?

I think the media recognize that the Canucks are in their rebuild window, but that the management is not behaving as rebuilding teams have in the past. Ferraro has criticized them heavily along the way for exactly this. Botchford and Paterson have chastised the Canucks for not following through with rebuild actions. All local media were hounding them about the rebuild label as well because they know management is not behaving as it should. Linden, for his part, sheepishly evaded the question. That has to tell you something.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/hope-and-rebuilding-key-for-canucks-future~1430308

 

[pgj98m3]

https://www.tsn.ca/nhl/video/hope-and-rebuilding-key-for-canucks-future~1430308

Thanks for posting experts who essentially confirm everything the anti-Benning Canuck fans have been saying.

 

[racerjoe]

For the 3rd time I did say it was Benning fault on the Hamhuis situation. Fyi it's not possible to have argument when you agree with someone. I agree with was Benning fault. But the fact is he only had 2 teams to work with

You are trying to diminish how much it was his fault by adding excuses. It’s the same reason you tried to add Weber.

 

[brokenhole]

I didn't write he was a main core. First sentence I wrote the team had a stale core. Second sentence I wrote bunch of players Benning try to trade. I wasn't indicating this was the core. However I can see why you would think that. The sentence was a little confusing.

How is it excuse. I even wrote this is Benning fault. Naming facts is not excuses. He did waive for two teams only.

The report was they had a discussion and Sedins wanted to stay

Fyi. It does take two tango. Actually three both GMs and the player with the ntc.

The fact is Gillis give ntc like they are candy.

Benning gives N.T.C. out like candy as well just as much as Gillis....oh but according to the Benning Bro's they are L.N.T.C. witch is different in bro speak.

 

[Canucks1096]

You are trying to diminish how much it was his fault by adding excuses. It’s the same reason you tried to add Weber.

How is it a excuses when is a fact? I am stating a fact. Hamhuis did only give 2 teams. It's a fact that nobody wanted Weber.

 

[racerjoe]

How is it a excuses when is a fact? I am stating a fact. Hamhuis did only give 2 teams. It's a fact that nobody wanted Weber.

A)no the Hamhuis stuff isn't fact, B)it precludes the fact we could have had a great return for him. C)its just there to make Benning look better by adding a false narrative.

You tried to add weber to another group of players to artificially raise those numbers, when in fact it should be in the other category of useless players JB acquired/signed.

 

[Canucks1096]

A)no the Hamhuis stuff isn't fact, B)it precludes the fact we could have had a great return for him. C)its just there to make Benning look better by adding a false narrative.

You tried to add weber to another group of players to artificially raise those numbers, when in fact it should be in the other category of useless players JB acquired/signed.

A. yes it a fact. There were only 2 teams Hamhuis waive his ntc too.
B yes we could had a great return. It's another fact. ( the fact that Benning screwed up. It doesn't change that fact
C no it's false narrative when it's a true.

You might want to Google difference between facts vs excuses.