The Rebuild Started...

[Seattle Totems]

Did all of the Chicken Littles out there, complaining about a lack of youth, actually think that the organization was going to roll with a roster that boasted Boeser, Pettersson, Dahlen, Gaudette, Leipzic, Goldobin, Juolevi, and Hughes? This is an NHL roster, not a daycare.

Whether you agree or disagree with the quality of the contracts the Canucks signed this past summer, it’s clear Benning and Co. are trying to insulate this team’s youth. They may not be quality veterans but they help bridge the gap until that youth is ready. You all throw shade at Hindustan about asset management but you may want to brush up on development yourselves.

No, we didnt think the Canucks would roll with 5 rookies, but we expected that the Canucks would at least allow competition for more than ONE roster spot after the Sedins retired. That would give the impression that the Canucks were actively trying to rebuild and give fans something to actually cheer about.

Are these rookies really going to be insulated? The plan is to let 4th line vets play all the hard minutes and let the youth fend for themselves while providing all the offense. I don't see a blueprint for success there. That's basically what the Oilers tried before they drafted McDavid. The Oilers had better prospects than the Canucks back then and look at how that turned out. I agree that the Canucks youth needs some "mentoring" but I strongly disagree with players like Sutter or 4th line plugs doing that job. The Canucks need offensively gifted vets - not clowns like Roussel and easily replaced vets like Beagle.

 

[Hit the post]

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.

It might've not made any difference by the part that Benning screwed up was waiting SO LONG in trying to move Hamhuis. Team was crap well before that point (Torts team I think might've even had a better record at that point) so there's goes that excuse of waiting until Benning knew the season was lost before 'throwing in the towel'. If you have questions regarding even re-signing said player, you pursue options to trade him & get something for him rather than lose him for nothing. You don't wait until a few weeks before the trade deadline (particularly when said player has a NTC).

It's the kind of mistake a rookie GM makes like forgetting to ask if you want ketchup with your fries.

 

[racerjoe]

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.

first google result...

here

In the article it stays the Hawks, and Dallas, as well as 1-2 other teams, if I remember correctly Pits was one. That is just memory. so I could totally be wrong on who those other two teams were. So yes A) is wrong for you... this makes C) true for me.

Thanks for the tip on using google... it did help.

 

[Canucks1096]

first google result...

here

In the article it stays the Hawks, and Dallas, as well as 1-2 other teams, if I remember correctly Pits was one. That is just memory. so I could totally be wrong on who those other two teams were. So yes A) is wrong for you... this makes C) true for me.

Thanks for the tip on using google... it did help.

You can't just read what You want to read. It said maybe 1 or 2 more team. Which means the writer is not even sure. If the writer is not sure. You can't really use that evidence.

 

[racerjoe]

You can't just read what You want to read. It said maybe 1 or 2 more team. Which means the writer is not even sure. If the writer is not sure. You can't really use that evidence.

Well it was the first article as I did just a super quick search as I am at work and don't have a ton of time. How about the fact that the Canucks had the Ladd offer on the table missed it, then had the eventual Russel deal on the table and missed it.

Now I don't have the time as mentioned I am at work, but I believe he just wasn't willing to go East, and was only asked to waive for the Hawks and Stars. You can now use that fancy google. I am going try doing my job.

 

[Canucks1096]

Well it was the first article as I did just a super quick search as I am at work and don't have a ton of time. How about the fact that the Canucks had the Ladd offer on the table missed it, then had the eventual Russel deal on the table and missed it.

Now I don't have the time as mentioned I am at work, but I believe he just wasn't willing to go East, and was only asked to waive for the Hawks and Stars. You can now use that fancy google. I am going try doing my job.

Hamhuis and his NTC, has waffling killed a deal?

The report was Hawks and Canucks had a deal in place. But Hamhuis didn't waive his ntc. Again you can't fault Benning for that.

However the other user was right If Benning was trying to trade Hamhuis trade earlier. Then the outcome might of been different. So like I said I will give Benning some blame as well like what I said earlier.

 

[Peter10]

Hamhuis and his NTC, has waffling killed a deal?

The report was Hawks and Canucks had a deal in place. But Hamhuis didn't waive his ntc. Again you can't fault Benning for that.

However the other user was right If Benning was trying to trade Hamhuis trade earlier. Then the outcome might of been different. So like I said I will give Benning some blame as well like what I said earlier.

I dont know why I am wasting my 2,000th post for this but anyway...



Guess will have to wait another 3 years or so before the next K

 

[Trelane]

At one point, EDM was considered to have the best prospect pool in the league, before McDavid. Did they rebuild properly during that stretch? If you say yes, then you should rightly be laughed out of this thread. If you say no, then you realize that the state of the pool does not equate to rebuilding properly.

Your facts are wrong, Trelane. PIT had a pick surplus during their rebuilding years. These years are from 2002 to 2006 (5 drafts). This is when the team was at the bottom of the standings. Why you would choose to substitute their competitive years for their rebuilding years is anyone's guess? In any case, during their _rebuilding_years_, they had 46 picks over a maximum of 41 assigned picks. This creates a 5 pick surplus over 5 drafts.

Probability in getting players from the draft. _From_the_draft_... You have already agreed that the best place to get core pieces is from the draft. Picks are required to have that happen. The more picks you have, the greater the probability in having that happen. This isn't hard. This is about probability of hit rates increasing the more chances you have to hit.

Trelane, you're really not making any points that haven't already been addressed.

Also at @y2kcanucks

Sure, why not, make 2002-04 the crucial years and give Pens 5-7 extra picks. Has the one and only proper rebuilt via extra picks position been advanced any? Would they have been less successful if the number was 5-7 fewer and provided their lottery luck held? Proof positive that those picks were a complete nullity is the Pens repeating some years later with a completely different roster save the two near generational talents. Frankly, I find citing the Pittsburgh model as anything instructive concerning drafting, requisite number of picks, etc., is embarrassing and behaviour unbecoming a knowledgeable hockey fan.

Meanwhile, I’ve listed 5 other clubs, recent one time champs only, so there ought to be no disputing the timelines, all having the same or fewer draft picks in the prior 10 years. I’ll add the 2010-12 Canucks just because. Ample evidence that there are myriad of ways to go about (re)building a winner.

Good prospect pool in bank > superior number of picks in hand because it’s a step further. Of course they could become the next Oilers but that can be said about anybody in the same boat. It beats the alternative. Wait and see, as always.

It’s also not true that our lofty prospect rating is overwhelmingly a product of sucking. After all, I’m constantly informed that JB butchers every other early 1st rounder, so he must be doing something right with the non looser slots. Feels good reading about late picks picks 2-3 years post draft, signing contracts, and actually having a shot. Drafting lick all in the 20s and on ought not be a distant memory. Superior drafting > extra lottery picks and hence more worth the rebuild points.

 

[Canucks1096]

I dont know why I am wasting my 2,000th post for this but anyway...



Guess will have to wait another 3 years or so before the next K

Ok so there are two versions of the story. So how can you prove your version is true and mine is not. The answer is you can't. So if we both can't prove it. To make it fair we don't use Hamhuis as part of the argument.

 

[Fatass]

I think we were retooling around the Twins until the 2017 TDL. The rebuild started at that point.

 

[Peter10]

Hamhuis himself said it. That should be a pretty good indication on the truth.

 

[pgj98m3]

Ok so there are two versions of the story. So how can you prove your version is true and mine is not. The answer is you can't. So if we both can't prove it. To make it fair we don't use Hamhuis as part of the argument.

Yeah right....that looks like pretty clear proof to me......you're drifting into Trump territory with your definitions of "proof", "truth", "evidence"

 

[racerjoe]

Hamhuis and his NTC, has waffling killed a deal?

The report was Hawks and Canucks had a deal in place. But Hamhuis didn't waive his ntc. Again you can't fault Benning for that.

However the other user was right If Benning was trying to trade Hamhuis trade earlier. Then the outcome might of been different. So like I said I will give Benning some blame as well like what I said earlier.

So A) what @Peter10 said.

Maybe he should have started this process earlier.

Also shows he was only asked for the Hawks, not asked for a list.

 

[me2]

It might've not made any difference by the part that Benning screwed up was waiting SO LONG in trying to move Hamhuis. Team was crap well before that point (Torts team I think might've even had a better record at that point) so there's goes that excuse of waiting until Benning knew the season was lost before 'throwing in the towel'. If you have questions regarding even re-signing said player, you pursue options to trade him & get something for him rather than lose him for nothing. You don't wait until a few weeks before the trade deadline (particularly when said player has a NTC).

It's the kind of mistake a rookie GM makes like forgetting to ask if you want ketchup with your fries.

Jim Bob was not rebuilding, plain and simple, hence he made no plans to trade these guys.

He went out after big name veterans that next off season because he was again not rebuilding.

Only a bad GM is this out of touch with his team.

 

[Canucks1096]

Yeah right....that looks like pretty clear proof to me......you're drifting into Trump territory with your definitions of "proof", "truth", "evidence"

I still dont quite understand what does Hamhuis saying he would of waive his ntc if a deal was worked out prove? We all know that already in the end he did waive his ntc. But that doesn't mean he waive his ntc clause when Benning worked out a deal with the Hawks. The article does clearly state Canucks and Hawks had a deal worked it but Hamhuis was still unsure he wanted to waive with days remaining to trade deadline. Hawks didn't wait around and just traded those assets for Ladd instead. In the end Hamhuis did want to waive but the offer wasn't there anymore.

Sorry is it possible maybe just stop reading what you to read. Thinking what you want think. Believe what you want to believe and stop generalizing.

What does Hamhuis confirm he would leave ntc prove. Nothing we all know that already.

 

[Canucks1096]

It might've not made any difference by the part that Benning screwed up was waiting SO LONG in trying to move Hamhuis. Team was crap well before that point (Torts team I think might've even had a better record at that point) so there's goes that excuse of waiting until Benning knew the season was lost before 'throwing in the towel'. If you have questions regarding even re-signing said player, you pursue options to trade him & get something for him rather than lose him for nothing. You don't wait until a few weeks before the trade deadline (particularly when said player has a NTC).

It's the kind of mistake a rookie GM makes like forgetting to ask if you want ketchup with your fries.

You are actually generalizing right now. They were not crap well before the deadline

NHL standings at the end of play on Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Jan 6. There actially 3rd in there divisions by early Feb they were in a few points out of a playoff spot. Sutter and Edler both were hurt around that time. After THAT Canucks started to lose a lot. So this story of yours is not true. The season was around early Feb to Mid Feb. So a few weeks before the deadline.

So you wanted Benning to throw the towel when he knew the season was lost. He did exactly that.

You just made up the whole story that not even true.

 

[nowhereman]

No, we didnt think the Canucks would roll with 5 rookies, but we expected that the Canucks would at least allow competition for more than ONE roster spot after the Sedins retired. That would give the impression that the Canucks were actively trying to rebuild and give fans something to actually cheer about.

Are these rookies really going to be insulated? The plan is to let 4th line vets play all the hard minutes and let the youth fend for themselves while providing all the offense. I don't see a blueprint for success there. That's basically what the Oilers tried before they drafted McDavid. The Oilers had better prospects than the Canucks back then and look at how that turned out. I agree that the Canucks youth needs some "mentoring" but I strongly disagree with players like Sutter or 4th line plugs doing that job. The Canucks need offensively gifted vets - not clowns like Roussel and easily replaced vets like Beagle.

Who says there isn't competition for spots? Benning has said that he will "make room", if a young player proves they're ready. That could mean trading or waiving players. If the kids don't prove they can handle NHL minutes, they get sent to Utica/College/Juniors, etc. and the journeyman vet takes their place. Many on this forum complain about veterans blocking the youth but I challenge them to name one young player who was clearly ready to make the jump and ended up being cut because of an older player.

I agree that it would be better to have elite veterans to school our young talent but the Sedins have retired and it's not easy to acquire that kind of player without paying through the nose in free agency (and the Canucks would have to massively overpay, since they'll be terrible for 1-2 more years).

Most on this forum are just looking to complain about something, without exhibiting even an ounce of patience to let the process play itself out. The kids will get there, it will just take a while. A rebuild doesn't happen overnight.

 

[Consistencee]

So we are at the point that when Elliot Friedman states that Hamhuis himself said that he would go to Chicago or Dallas, we still question the statements validity?

*head explodes

 

[racerjoe]

So we are at the point that when Elliot Friedman states that Hamhuis himself said that he would go to Chicago or Dallas, we still question the statements validity?

*head explodes

He never said only. He was only asked to go to those two teams. He didn’t want to go to the east.

 

[Hit the post]

You are actually generalizing right now. They were not crap well before the deadline

NHL standings at the end of play on Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Jan 6. There actially 3rd in there divisions by early Feb they were in a few points out of a playoff spot. Sutter and Edler both were hurt around that time. After THAT Canucks started to lose a lot. So this story of yours is not true. The season was around early Feb to Mid Feb. So a few weeks before the deadline.

So you wanted Benning to throw the towel when he knew the season was lost. He did exactly that.

You just made up the whole story that not even true.

Outside of uber crap teams, nobody is that many points out of a playoff spot by January 6 in any given season.

Using your own link, under the Torts disaster season, as of January 6, 2014 the Canucks had 54 points in 44 games. Canucks were 4th in their division but actually in wild card spot by several points. As of mid February (Feb 14, 2014), the Canucks were one point out of a wild card spot. Unless I'm reading the numbers wrong (if so, I apologize in advance for making such an error).

In any event, just in a wild card spot in the NHL is hardly any measure of greatness given how many teams make the post-season. It's a pretty low bar.

 

[Canucks1096]

Outside of uber crap teams, nobody is that many points out of a playoff spot by January 6 in any given season.

Using your own link, under the Torts disaster season, as of January 6, 2014 the Canucks had 54 points in 44 games. Canucks were 4th in their division but actually in wild card spot by several points. As of mid February (Feb 14, 2014), the Canucks were one point out of a wild card spot. Unless I'm reading the numbers wrong (if so, I apologize in advance for making such an error).

In any event, just in a wild card spot in the NHL is hardly any measure of greatness given how many teams make the post-season. It's a pretty low bar.

Don't try to change the goal post. I never said was it was greatness. I said they were not crap. No matter how you slice and dice it. Being on wild card spot is not crap. Also you were indicating that Benning knew the season was lost already and he didn't try to move Hamhuis. That not true because the season wasn't lost until middle of Feb. Which proves you post is just wrong.

Regardless of Torts. I am not debating that. However but for the record Torts going to Flames dressing that was probably turning point of that season
The first 40 to 50 games they had some solid stretch of hockey.

 

[Hit the post]

Don't try to change the goal post. I never said was it was greatness. I said they were not crap. No matter how you slice and dice it. Being on wild card spot is not crap.

We'll have to agree to disagree and have to leave it at that. I believe having an average (forget solid) first 40 to 50 games where the result is one or two points out of a wild card spot (or in spot) is crap. Perhaps crap was too strong a word to use - replace it with medicore.

 

[Canucks1096]

To The Benning that's not rebuilding crowd.

A few things I don't quite understand. Can you please clarify?
Since 2014 until now every prospects /young player that deserve to be on the team made the team. Nobody can think of any legit examples. Well there is Stecher but he was playing in top 6 regardless of injury in Nov.

2015 Horvat Vey
2016 Virtanen Hutton Macann Baer
2017 Stecher Granlund
2018 Boeser

So why are you guys so concern? If a prospect deserve to be here. They will make the team. Do you really think Benning will put a player on waiver if he think that player has upside to be part of future core. Of course not? Benning will only put players on waivers if he doesn't think that player is part of the future.

Also another thing I don't quite understand is you guys don't like it Benning get all these struggling young players instead draft picks. Reason being you guys think those players are good.

So why are you guys worry about these Vets blocking those young players. Leispic Goldobin Granlund. If you are guys are not high on these players? Why do you worry that these players won't play? It just doesn't make sense. You guys want to some of these player yo play but you guys don't think these players have much upside.

 

[Kryten]

To the Benning that’s building good crowd.

Yer rong

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

To The Benning that's not rebuilding crowd.

A few things I don't quite understand. Can you please clarify?
Since 2014 until now every prospects /young player that deserve to be on the team made the team. Nobody can think of any legit examples. Well there is Stecher but he was playing in top 6 regardless of injury in Nov.

2015 Horvat Vey
2016 Virtanen Hutton Macann Baer
2017 Stecher Granlund
2018 Boeser

So why are you guys so concern? If a prospect deserve to be here. They will make the team. Do you really think Benning will put a player on waiver if he think that player has upside to be part of future core. Of course not? Benning will only put players on waivers if he doesn't think that player is part of the future.

Also another thing I don't quite understand is you guys don't like it Benning get all these struggling young players instead draft picks. Reason being you guys think those players are good.

So why are you guys worry about these Vets blocking those young players. Leispic Goldobin Granlund. If you are guys are not high on these players? Why do you worry that these players won't play? It just doesn't make sense. You guys want to some of these player yo play but you guys don't think these players have much upside.

Benning has said this repeatedly....If a prospect earns a spot (which will be obvious to fans and media)..He will have to follow through.