The Rebuild Started...

[Bleach Clean]

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.

^ Normality Bias 101.

In order to properly answer your question, we have to look back to a time when there were at least 5 bottom6 forwards locked up to multi-year deals plus around 3-4 fringe younger players. Can you cite a time in the past where this was applicable? If you can't, then you're judging the present by a past that never existed under Benning.

The crux of your argument comes down to "deserve". Who decides? Green? Well, Green is far from the perfect judge. Deserve is far too subjective. I think the more important decision is fringe+upside vs. bottom end+no upside. For a rebuilding club, any upside is better than none.

Why do we worry that these players play? I don't, really, but if the GM is idiotic enough to trade picks for fringe prospects with a modicum of upside, one would think that this same GM would want to see that through. Otherwise, why trade the picks? By locking himself in, he's chosen to promote the next plan while setting fire to his first plan.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Literally just saw the worst "Canucks are rebuilding" comment I've ever seen. It happened on Twitter.

"The Canucks are rebuilding because everyone knows they're rebuilding"

Couldn't cite any examples of how they're rebuilding, and my points about how they weren't rebuilding were met with insult after insult. As bad as some of the arguments are on here, I think this one tops the cake.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Literally just saw the worst "Canucks are rebuilding" comment I've ever seen. It happened on Twitter.

"The Canucks are rebuilding because everyone knows they're rebuilding"

Couldn't cite any examples of how they're rebuilding, and my points about how they weren't rebuilding were met with insult after insult. As bad as some of the arguments are on here, I think this one tops the cake.

-Bieksa moved for a 2nd.
-Lack moved for a 3rd and a 7th.
-Higgins replaced by Baertschi
-Garrison gonzo
-Burrows moved for Dahlen
-Hansen moved for Goldobin
-Markstrom was promoted within the system
-Guys like Horvat, Boeser, Virtanen, Granlund, Gaunce, Hutton, Stecher, and Leipsic are all on the team.
NONE of the vets are blocking the kids from spots (i.e. even though the Canucks signed Eriksson, Eriksson's presence did not hold someone like Boeser back. Ditto for guys like Gagner).
-Canucks have traded 2nd round picks and below for players, but most of these guys were in their early or mid 20's.
-The Canucks have built up a deep prospect pool from ALL rounds of the draft, as opposed to just taking advantage of being a lottery team stacking up on lottery picks. Gadjovich, Lind, Pettersson, Hughes, Palmu, Woo, Rathbone, Palmu, Chatfield, Demko, Dipietro, etc........just to name a few.
-Guys like Sutter, Gudbranson, Beagle, Roussel, and Gagner help bring a veteran presence for the kids.......and are NOT blocking any kids.

These are all evidence of moves of a rebuilding team.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

When you sign Beagle and Roussel to 4 year deals you are not rebuilding.

Making a couple trades and drafting players with the picks you already have is strictly business as usual from an operational POV.

Benning's idea of rebuilding is that brutal dye job on his head.

 

[Horse McHindu]

When you sign Beagle and Roussel to 4 year deals you are not rebuilding.
.

Yes, it’s possible.

Smart GM’s know that there is far more to rebuilding than icing a bunch of 18-21 year old kids with PTO vets. It’s important to surround kids with character vets that have played important roles on championship teams.

Beagle and Roussel are signed long term, but their presence will not hold back any of the kids that are deserving of more duties and responsibilities. Unfortunately, this is a concept that the JD Burke crew has great difficulty grasping.

 

[y2kcanucks]

-Bieksa moved for a 2nd.
-Lack moved for a 3rd and a 7th.
-Higgins replaced by Baertschi
-Garrison gonzo
-Burrows moved for Dahlen
-Hansen moved for Goldobin
-Markstrom was promoted within the system
-Guys like Horvat, Boeser, Virtanen, Granlund, Gaunce, Hutton, Stecher, and Leipsic are all on the team.
NONE of the vets are blocking the kids from spots (i.e. even though the Canucks signed Eriksson, Eriksson's presence did not hold someone like Boeser back. Ditto for guys like Gagner).
-Canucks have traded 2nd round picks and below for players, but most of these guys were in their early or mid 20's.
-The Canucks have built up a deep prospect pool from ALL rounds of the draft, as opposed to just taking advantage of being a lottery team stacking up on lottery picks. Gadjovich, Lind, Pettersson, Hughes, Palmu, Woo, Rathbone, Palmu, Chatfield, Demko, Dipietro, etc........just to name a few.
-Guys like Sutter, Gudbranson, Beagle, Roussel, and Gagner help bring a veteran presence for the kids.......and are NOT blocking any kids.

These are all evidence of moves of a rebuilding team.

-Bieksa trade was good. Benning trading away that 2nd round pick was bad and not consistent with a rebuild.
-Lack was traded so the Canucks could keep a 37 year old goalie. That's not consistent with a rebuild.
-Garrison trade was good, trading away that 2nd round pick was bad and not consistent with a rebuild.
-Burrows trade was great.
-Hansen trade was done for expansion draft purposes and wouldn't have been done otherwise (as per Benning himself).
-Markstrom is 28. Him being our starting goalie is not indicative of a rebuild.
-Oh wow, the Canucks have some mid-20's players on the team, just like almost every other team. Not indicative of a rebuild. (just look at the ages of Tampa's players...are they rebuilding?)
-Trading away draft picks and going into drafts with a pick deficit is not indicative of a rebuild.
-Just because you can list a bunch of prospects, many of whom will not ever play regularly in the NHL, doesn't mean the team is rebuilding. You can get a list of similar prospects from any team. Not indicative of a rebuild.
-Actually those veterans are blocking players. Dahlen, for example, doesn't have a spot this year. It's also funny that you list players like Gaunce and Leipsic (ignore Goldobin, but you praised his acquisition earlier), yet it's likely that none of those players will make the team because of all the veterans Benning brought in.

So no, that's not evidence of moves of a rebuilding team.

You know what a rebuild looks like?

-Stockpiling draft picks and prospects (like Montreal, Detroit, and the New York Rangers did this year)
-Weaponizing cap space to add more picks and prospects (like Carolina and Arizona have done)
-Signing a select few veterans to 1-year contracts so you can flip them for picks at the deadline (like Toronto did a couple years ago)
-Not spending to the cap (like practically every rebuilding team, unlike what the Canucks have done up until now).
-NOT trading away draft picks and entering drafts with a draft pick deficit.
-Having more than 1 rookie in the lineup.

But hey, even you agree the Canucks haven't been rebuilding. You said so every year that they were retooling and not rebuilding.

 

[Horse McHindu]

A retool is a milder form of a rebuild. It’s still a rebuild.

When I made the comment that the Canucks were retooling and not rebuilding, I was trying to imply that the Canucks weren’t going to “blow it up” because “blowing it up” is and was incredibly risky (which is generally what people mean when they use the term ‘Rebuild.’). For some reason, this is a concept that is lost on both you and @Peter10.

Both of you have called me out on this comment numerous times and I’ve explained this to you both.......numerous times.

 

[y2kcanucks]

A retool is a milder form of a rebuild. It’s still a rebuild.

When I made the comment that the Canucks were retooling and not rebuilding, I was trying to imply that the Canucks weren’t going to “blow it up” because “blowing it up” is and was incredibly risky (which is generally what people mean when they use the term ‘Rebuild.’). For some reason, this is a concept that is lost on both you and @Peter10.

Both of you have called me out on this comment numerous times and I’ve explained this to you both.......numerous times.

Meanwhile Benning has built the worst team in the NHL over the last 3 year period despite spending to the cap every year and trading away futures. You call that a rebuild?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

A retool is a milder form of a rebuild. It’s still a rebuild.

When I made the comment that the Canucks were retooling and not rebuilding, I was trying to imply that the Canucks weren’t going to “blow it up” because “blowing it up” is and was incredibly risky (which is generally what people mean when they use the term ‘Rebuild.’). For some reason, this is a concept that is lost on both you and @Peter10.

Both of you have called me out on this comment numerous times and I’ve explained this to you both.......numerous times.

I think that retooling and actually rebuilding are so different that what you are saying here doesn't really explain it away.

It is far riskier to let assets deteriorate and go for zero return then it is to actually rebuild when the time is right.

 

[Horse McHindu]

-Bieksa trade was good. Benning trading away that 2nd round pick was bad and not consistent with a rebuild.
-Lack was traded so the Canucks could keep a 37 year old goalie. That's not consistent with a rebuild.
-Garrison trade was good, trading away that 2nd round pick was bad and not consistent with a rebuild.
-Burrows trade was great.
-Hansen trade was done for expansion draft purposes and wouldn't have been done otherwise (as per Benning himself).
-Markstrom is 28. Him being our starting goalie is not indicative of a rebuild.
-Oh wow, the Canucks have some mid-20's players on the team, just like almost every other team. Not indicative of a rebuild. (just look at the ages of Tampa's players...are they rebuilding?)
-Trading away draft picks and going into drafts with a pick deficit is not indicative of a rebuild.
-Just because you can list a bunch of prospects, many of whom will not ever play regularly in the NHL, doesn't mean the team is rebuilding. You can get a list of similar prospects from any team. Not indicative of a rebuild.
-Actually those veterans are blocking players. Dahlen, for example, doesn't have a spot this year. It's also funny that you list players like Gaunce and Leipsic (ignore Goldobin, but you praised his acquisition earlier), yet it's likely that none of those players will make the team because of all the veterans Benning brought in.

So no, that's not evidence of moves of a rebuilding team.

You know what a rebuild looks like?

-Stockpiling draft picks and prospects (like Montreal, Detroit, and the New York Rangers did this year)
-Weaponizing cap space to add more picks and prospects (like Carolina and Arizona have done)
-Signing a select few veterans to 1-year contracts so you can flip them for picks at the deadline (like Toronto did a couple years ago)
-Not spending to the cap (like practically every rebuilding team, unlike what the Canucks have done up until now).
-NOT trading away draft picks and entering drafts with a draft pick deficit.
-Having more than 1 rookie in the lineup.

But hey, even you agree the Canucks haven't been rebuilding. You said so every year that they were retooling and not rebuilding.

-Bieksa trade was good (as you admitted).
-The Canucks traded for Vey to help fill the age gap. You and I will disagree on this, but the “age gap problem” is an actual thing.
-Lack was the inferior goalie and was traded. Time has proven that Benning made the correct decision as Lack has played like a thespian ever since. The Canucks wanted to bring Markstrom up and so who better to mentor Markstrom than Miller?
-show me where Benning admitted that about Hansen.
-your draft pick deficit fails to take into account the acquisition of both Dahlen and Leipsic, and also fails to take into account that Benning is doing MORE with LESS relative to other teams. Hence - one reason why our prospect pool is so deep right now.
-If Dahlen earns a spot at camp this year, room will be made for him on the top 6. If not - he will go to Utica and gets tons of ice time and opportunity down there. According to you however, the Utica option is inferior to getting limited bottom 6 minutes playing alongside Sutter or Beagle.
-As far as one year deal goes, the Canucks did exactly that with Vanek last year.
-As far as rookies go, there is a good chance that we will have Pettersson + one or both of Hughes and Juolevi in the line-up this year.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Meanwhile Benning has built the worst team in the NHL over the last 3 year period despite spending to the cap every year and trading away futures. You call that a rebuild?

It’s still a rebuild yes.

Boeser emerged as a superstar on the team, Virtanen showed some nice improvement, and Markstrom took over the reigns as the number one (to your previous point about Markstrom, goalies often come into their peak around their mid-late 20’s.......which is different from most forwards and defensemen that enter into their primes in their early 20’s). Leipsic looked promising upon being traded here. Baertschi continued to produce at an honest 2nd line pace. Horvat continues to be a bull.

Although guys like Pouliot and Stecher were sub-par, they were given ample opportunities.

No 1sts or 2nds we’re traded for rental players or late 20/early 30’s guys.

Gagner was terrible however I will give you that.

Nonetheless - these moves are all consistent with a rebuild. The young guys on the team emerged as leaders and Producers as the twins started to slowly fade into the sunset.

 

[y2kcanucks]

-Bieksa trade was good (as you admitted).
-The Canucks traded for Vey to help fill the age gap. You and I will disagree on this, but the “age gap problem” is an actual thing.
-Lack was the inferior goalie and was traded. Time has proven that Benning made the correct decision as Lack has played like a thespian ever since. The Canucks wanted to bring Markstrom up and so who better to mentor Markstrom than Miller?
-show me where Benning admitted that about Hansen.
-your draft pick deficit fails to take into account the acquisition of both Dahlen and Leipsic, and also fails to take into account that Benning is doing MORE with LESS relative to other teams. Hence - one reason why our prospect pool is so deep right now.
-If Dahlen earns a spot at camp this year, room will be made for him on the top 6. If not - he will go to Utica and gets tons of ice time and opportunity down there. According to you however, the Utica option is inferior to getting limited bottom 6 minutes playing alongside Sutter or Beagle.
-As far as one year deal goes, the Canucks did exactly that with Vanek last year.
-As far as rookies go, there is a good chance that we will have Pettersson + one or both of Hughes and Juolevi in the line-up this year.

No, the age gap problem is not an actual thing. No matter how much you say it is, it isn't. There is zero evidence that supports this. This is just an excuse to explain why Benning has failed at his job.

Turning down the 9th overall pick for Miller just to trade Lack (who outplayed Miller that year) was about as dumb of a decision as the Benning regime has made.

I'm getting really tired of having to search for sources for items that have been discussed ad nauseum, just because people like you either don't pay attention or conveniently choose to forget, but here's the story about the Hansen trade:

Jason Botchford: Vegas expansion forces Canucks’ hand at rebuilding

Because if not for the Vegas Golden Knights, it seems Jannik Hansen would likely still be a Canuck and Vancouver would have missed out on one of their most valuable deals when it comes to the rebuild.
“Yeah,” Vancouver GM Jim Benning said when asked if Hansen would still be on the roster if not for Vegas.
“If there was no expansion draft, there wouldn’t have been the urgency to move him. He’s been a good player for us through the years.”

Why would one take into account Dahlen or 24 year old Leipsic? We have a draft pick deficit. Those two players don't change that. The fact is this team isn't stockpiling draft picks like rebuilding teams do. That's a fact.

Not sure what you're point is about doing more with less. Benning has had 4 picks in the top 7 since he's been here. How many GM's get that luxury? Not to mention he's f***ed 2 of those picks up.

Who do you think is going to be the Canucks 2C? Because it's most likely going to be Brandon Sutter

Who sits if Dahlen makes the team? Is there room for Dahlen, Goldobin, and Leipsic to all make the team? Who exits the lineup for all 3? What if these guys outplay Roussel and Beagle? Do the Canucks send them down?

The Vanek signing was fine (though the complaints about the team being too veteran were very valid). The trade that Benning made was awful.

Who exits the roster for Juolevi and Hughes?

 

[y2kcanucks]

It’s still a rebuild yes.

Boeser emerged as a superstar on the team, Virtanen showed some nice improvement, and Markstrom took over the reigns as the number one (to your previous point about Markstrom, goalies often come into their peak around their mid-late 20’s.......which is different from most forwards and defensemen that enter into their primes in their early 20’s). Leipsic looked promising upon being traded here. Baertschi continued to produce at an honest 2nd line pace. Horvat continues to be a bull.

Although guys like Pouliot and Stecher were sub-par, they were given ample opportunities.

No 1sts or 2nds we’re traded for rental players or late 20/early 30’s guys.

Gagner was terrible however I will give you that.

Nonetheless - these moves are all consistent with a rebuild. The young guys on the team emerged as leaders and Producers as the twins started to slowly fade into the sunset.

Virtanen showed improvement? 5 points in his last 22 games is improvement?

Markstrom is in his late 20's. I'm not sure what your point is. How does that mean we're rebuilding? How old is Andre Vasilevskiy? Connor Hellebyuck? Those are two of the 3 Vezina finalists this year. Are those two teams rebuilding right now because their goalies are young?

Brayden Point emerged as a superstar this year. Is Tampa rebuilding?

There you go again saying "these moves are consistent with a rebuild." What moves??? Introducing youth into the lineup? Tampa does that. Is Tampa rebuilding?

 

[arttk]

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?

Philip Larsen, ,

Canucks' Philip Larsen: Healthy enough to return

by RotoWire Staff | Special to CBSSports.com

(11/29/16) Larsen (illness) will be in the lineup against the Wild on Tuesday. Larsen was sidelined for the Canucks' last nine outings with an undisclosed illness, but will be back in action. The 26-year-old's return comes just in the nick of time as fellow blueliner Alexander Edler (finger) is expected to miss 4-to-6 weeks. Larsen has four assists on the year, two of which have come on the power play, but is a minus-8 which should be a red flag for fantasy owners.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Larsen wasn’t healthy, he was sidelined with an undisclosed illness. Larsen was giving every chance until he got destroyed by injuries, especially the one that sent him to the hospital.

Stecher didn’t even get a sniff until the injuries set in. At one point we didn’t even have a RHD because Gubranson, Larsen and Tanev were all out.

 

[Canucks1096]

Philip Larsen, ,

Canucks' Philip Larsen: Healthy enough to return

by RotoWire Staff | Special to CBSSports.com

(11/29/16) Larsen (illness) will be in the lineup against the Wild on Tuesday. Larsen was sidelined for the Canucks' last nine outings with an undisclosed illness, but will be back in action. The 26-year-old's return comes just in the nick of time as fellow blueliner Alexander Edler (finger) is expected to miss 4-to-6 weeks. Larsen has four assists on the year, two of which have come on the power play, but is a minus-8 which should be a red flag for fantasy owners.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Larsen wasn’t healthy, he was sidelined with an undisclosed illness. Larsen was giving every chance until he got destroyed by injuries, especially the one that sent him to the hospital.

Stecher didn’t even get a sniff until the injuries set in. At one point we didn’t even have a RHD because Gubranson, Larsen and Tanev were all out.

Canucks Game Day: Virtanen, Larsen sit; Stecher adds grit; Grabner a big hit

It was reported that Larsen was a healthy scratch on Nov 8. Afterwards on another day there was reports he got a Virus. But you can't just assume he got the Virus on November 8. The reports does clearly show Nov 8 he was healthy scratch. So Stecher regardless of injury was ahead of Larsen.

Look at it this way. Both Stecher and Larsen in the lineup. Stecher plays on the 1st or 2nd pairing. Stecher took Larsen pp time as well and Stecher around plays 20 mins A Game. Larsen 3rd pairing and around 15 games a game. Which means Stecher was ahead of Larsen on the depth chart by Nov.

By Mid season Canucks were getting healthy bodies back except Gudbranson. They could of sent Stecher back down but they didn't because he pass a lot of guys on the depth chart already.

They still had Tanev Edler Tryamkin Sbisa Hutton Larsen Biega. That's still 7 D.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

ended

 

[ProstheticConscience]

ended

We wish.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

We wish.

does this look like we are still trying to rebuild?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

does this look like we are still trying to rebuild?

Yes it does...these players suit the rebuild...The problem is the term.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Yes it does...these players suit the rebuild...The problem is the term.

No, they don't, and you can't separate the term from contract, or the contract from the player.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

No, they don't, and you can't separate the term from contract, or the contract from the player.

Thats bizarre..not trying to totally appeal to authority but before July 1st, Ferraro said that Beagle was precisely the player the Canucks should target....for 1 or 2 years.

 

[me2]

-Bieksa moved for a 2nd.
-Lack moved for a 3rd and a 7th.
-Higgins replaced by Baertschi
-Garrison gonzo
-Burrows moved for Dahlen
-Hansen moved for Goldobin
-Markstrom was promoted within the system
-Guys like Horvat, Boeser, Virtanen, Granlund, Gaunce, Hutton, Stecher, and Leipsic are all on the team.
NONE of the vets are blocking the kids from spots (i.e. even though the Canucks signed Eriksson, Eriksson's presence did not hold someone like Boeser back. Ditto for guys like Gagner).
-Canucks have traded 2nd round picks and below for players, but most of these guys were in their early or mid 20's.
-The Canucks have built up a deep prospect pool from ALL rounds of the draft, as opposed to just taking advantage of being a lottery team stacking up on lottery picks. Gadjovich, Lind, Pettersson, Hughes, Palmu, Woo, Rathbone, Palmu, Chatfield, Demko, Dipietro, etc........just to name a few.
-Guys like Sutter, Gudbranson, Beagle, Roussel, and Gagner help bring a veteran presence for the kids.......and are NOT blocking any kids.

These are all evidence of moves of a rebuilding team.

Nope.

If moving a couple of veterans makes your team a rebuilding most teams would qualify according to your logic. Random moves don't make the team a rebuilding one.

Pittsburgh traded Pouliot for a pick, Sheary and hunwick for a pick, rebuilding?.....

The oilers traded Maroon at deadline, they were not rebuilding just suck.

The blackhawks have been selling they aren't rebuilding.

Etc.

There are very few moves in your list that fit rebuilding, when your factor in the team's strategy. Vanek is about the only one with a semi-decent case. The rest are just normal turnover.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Thats bizarre..not trying to totally appeal to authority but before July 1st, Ferraro said that Beagle was precisely the player the Canucks should target....for 1 or 2 years.

Not trying to appeal but here's the appeal?

Anyways, there were far better options to suit the rebuild. Bringing Vanek back (ugh) on a 1 year would have been better than Beagle on a 1-2 year deal. So Beagle's fit for the rebuild is highly debatable.

All that said, we cannot separate the player from the contract. In that sense, Beagle is not a fit.

 

[me2]

Not trying to appeal but here's the appeal?

Anyways, there were far better options to suit the rebuild. Bringing Vanek back (ugh) on a 1 year would have been better than Beagle on a 1-2 year deal. So Beagle's fit for the rebuild is highly debatable.

All that said, we cannot separate the player from the contract. In that sense, Beagle is not a fit.

Beagle on one year is a highly saleable item, a one year would have been excellent, marketed as 4th line centre depth he'd sell well. On 4 he's ass.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Beagle on one year is a highly saleable item, a one year would have been excellent, marketed as 4th line centre depth he'd sell well. On 4 he's ass.

Benning doesn't sell. Or, sell well. I think Vanek would have helped the offense, which is the biggest concern with the twins departing. YMMV

In any case, Beagle on a 1 year contract doesn't exist, so I think the point about his unsuitability for the rebuild should stand. Agree/Disagree?