The Rebuild Started...

[Canucks1096]

So what you are saying is that Benning can't draft so its better for him to go after projects because maybe he can find a second line player like Baertshi?

Also Tryamkin could have been a regular and a more important player than Baertshi, but WD pissed that opportunity away.

I think you came late in the argument. Just a recap. Most people here think Canucks are not rebuilding because they don't get a lot of picks. They trade Vets for young players and trade picks for struggling early 20 year old.

For me I don't think there is much of a difference between pick 2nd to 7th vs struggling early 20 year old.

I never once said We should trade all those picks.

For me if I was GM. I would do a bit everything. Don't put All your eggs in one basket. Hawks one of best rebuilds in nhl history. They did everything drafted well, got struggling young players. Free Agent. They did get a lot picks as well but it wasn't much of factor in their first cup. If Hawks didnt trade for struggling young players like Ladd Versteeg and Sharp. They probably wouldn't of won the cup in 2010. To be fair if They didnt get a lot of picks They probably wouldn't of won their second cup.

So Hawks actually prove that you can do it both ways

 

[Askel]

I think you came late in the argument. Just a recap. Most people here think Canucks are not rebuilding because they don't get a lot of picks. They trade Vets for young players and trade picks for struggling early 20 year old.

For me I don't think there is much of a difference between pick 2nd to 7th vs struggling early 20 year old.

I never once said We should trade all those picks.

For me if I was GM. I would do a bit everything. Don't put All your eggs in one basket. Hawks one of best rebuilds in nhl history. They did everything drafted well, got struggling young players. Free Agent. They did get a lot picks as well but it wasn't much of factor in their first cup. If Hawks didnt trade for struggling young players like Ladd Versteeg and Sharp. They probably wouldn't of won the cup in 2010. To be fair if They didnt get a lot of picks They probably wouldn't of won their second cup.

So Hawks actually prove that you can do it both ways

But the main thing the Blackhawks did was to add extra draft picks. They picked 48 times (average amount of picks was 34) in between 2002-2005. These picks added players like Keith, Wishnewski, Burrish,Byfuglien, Crawford, Brouwer, Bolland, Bickell and Hjalmarsson outside of the first round.

This is what I want Benning to do, not trade draft picks for crap like Poliout, Larssen and the likes,.

 

[Canucks1096]

Would you expect a 2017 2-7 round pick to be playing in their draft plus 1?

Hell there is still probably just an outside chance a player drafted 2016 non 1st rounder already made the nhl.

Then as mentioned you have two dmen who would probably be playing in the nhl right now for us if we didn’t screw up with them.

This also doesn’t include Demko who probably plays, or any of the 2017s who have a chance. I mean really they are looking at 3 in 20 at worst that is what 15%.

I would say all 3 would be more impactful then Baertschi, who wasn’t even really a reclomation project, and many here when the trade happened didn’t mind it even though we slightly overpaid.

To be fair I don't expect D +1 To make it to the nhl but you guys are saying Draft picks are better than a struggling early 20 year old. You guys won't know until few years later. You can't use evidences that hasn't been established yet.

I can give you Forsling even though he wasnt regular player on the Hawks. To be fair I think you should guve me Granlund. We are playing what if card now. Granlund got 19 goals the year before. If Green didn't use him a checker this year. I think he could of GOTTEN around that mark this year.

Goalies. We really don't know what we got until they play a lot of nhl games.

Once a Upon of time Markstrom, Weeks, Storr, Bernier, Denis, Ouellet, Leclaire were all can't miss nhl goalie prospects. All were nothing special. Demko I can't give you..

 

[Askel]

All the players Benning drafted after the 1st round are not nhl regulars.

Fair point, faster results is not always better. But as of right now you don't know how those draft picks will turn out. So how can use something that you don't an as an argument?

Tryamkin. Another Fair points. I counted 2014 to 2017 23 picks outside of the 1st round. So Benning picks are at 4% now.

If I give you Tryamkin I think you should give me Granlund. He did get 19 goals the year before in 69 games but Green to decided to use him a checker instead.

Once again your only point here is that Benning doesn't draft well enough. Also players picked outside the first round takes longer time to develop. just because Lind, Forsling, Woo, Madden, Utunen, Gadjovich, Demko, Gaudette, Brisebois, Jasek and Palmu isn't regulars yet doesn't mean that they never will be. If 4 of these eleven players turn into meaningful contributors suddenly the percentage changes to 20% which is better than the agegap strategy.

And some of these players at least Lind, Demko, Gaudette has the potential to be become more important players than Baertshi.

 

[Canucks1096]

But the main thing the Blackhawks did was to add extra draft picks. They picked 48 times (average amount of picks was 34) in between 2002-2005. These picks added players like Keith, Wishnewski, Burrish,Byfuglien, Crawford, Brouwer, Bolland, Bickell and Hjalmarsson outside of the first round.

This is what I want Benning to do, not trade draft picks for crap like Poliout, Larssen and the likes,.

But the main thing the Blackhawks did was to add extra draft picks. They picked 48 times (average amount of picks was 34) in between 2002-2005. These picks added players like Keith, Wishnewski, Burrish,Byfuglien, Crawford, Brouwer, Bolland, Bickell and Hjalmarsson outside of the first round.

This is what I want Benning to do, not trade draft picks for crap like Poliout, Larssen and the likes,.

Just to Clarify I said 2010 cup stacking pick wasn't a factor. It was in their second cup that was a factor

Crawford Wishnewski didn't play for Hawks in 2010. Burrish and Brower played small roles. Bickell only played a few games. Keith Bolland Buff were drafting from there own pick. Keith and Bolland was from their first pick in the secound round. Buff was a 8th round pick. If Hawks didn't get extra picks They would of picked those players anyways. Hjalmarrsson was a 4th round pick I believe Hawks got that pick in trade. At that time he was number 4 D behind Keith SEABROOK Campbell. So in 2010 all there main pieces it wasn't because they stacked Picks.

 

[Canucks1096]

Once again your only point here is that Benning doesn't draft well enough. Also players picked outside the first round takes longer time to develop. just because Lind, Forsling, Woo, Madden, Utunen, Gadjovich, Demko, Gaudette, Brisebois, Jasek and Palmu isn't regulars yet doesn't mean that they never will be. If 4 of these eleven players turn into meaningful contributors suddenly the percentage changes to 20% which is better than the agegap strategy.

And some of these players at least Lind, Demko, Gaudette has the potential to be become more important players than Baertshi.

If I include Granlund. It's about 20% for me as well. If We count Goldobin it goes to about 30%. As of right now you don't know
. You just taking an educated guess right now.

The funny thing is you said later picks take longer to develope. But trading for a struggling prospect is bad idea. But why you just said they take longer to develope. So Canucks draft pick take longer to develope and still have Potential. Get a young player from another team. That players has very little potential.

I am pretty sure almost nobody willing to trade Virtanen for a 3rd round pick. Our struggling young players are more valuable than other team struggling young players that we got in trade.

 

[pgj98m3]

If I include Granlund. It's about 20% for me as well. If We count Goldobin it goes to about 30%. As of right now you don't know
. You just taking an educated guess right now.

The funny thing is you said later picks take longer to develope. But trading for a struggling prospect is bad idea. But why you just said they take longer to develope. So Canucks draft pick take longer to develope and still have Potential. Get a young player from another team. That players has very little potential.

I am pretty sure almost nobody willing to trade Virtanen for a 3rd round pick. Our struggling young players are more valuable than other team struggling young players that we got in trade.

Have I got this right.....you seem to arguing for drafting vs reclamation trades.

 

[CanaFan]

If I include Granlund. It's about 20% for me as well. If We count Goldobin it goes to about 30%. As of right now you don't know
. You just taking an educated guess right now.

The funny thing is you said later picks take longer to develope. But trading for a struggling prospect is bad idea. But why you just said they take longer to develope. So Canucks draft pick take longer to develope and still have Potential. Get a young player from another team. That players has very little potential.

I am pretty sure almost nobody willing to trade Virtanen for a 3rd round pick. Our struggling young players are more valuable than other team struggling young players that we got in trade.

You do understand that Jake Virtanen and Linden Vey are miles apart, right? Someone like Virtanen is not a reclamation project, he is an NHLer who hasn’t hit his projected potential (and may never). Linden Vey was an AHLer who was a question mark to even play in the NHL when we acquired him. Just like most of Benning’s acquisitions.

Don’t confuse what Benning is doing with guys like Virtanen, Naslund, Bertuzzi, Ladd, etc. They aren’t remotely similar.

 

[Seattle Totems]

A team that does not plan to finish with a lottery pick is not rebuilding. Pretty simple.

 

[Bleach Clean]

For me I don't think there is much of a difference between pick 2nd to 7th vs struggling early 20 year old.

I never once said We should trade all those picks.

For me if I was GM. I would do a bit everything.

There is a difference in how you perceive your position, and how most everyone else is perceiving your position:

1. No one is arguing against a mixed strategy. They are advocating for trades to be a complementary strategy, where pick acquisition is still the primary mode. Less Baertschi type trades is favoured.

2. Your position is that depth picks and struggling 20 year olds are interchangeable. The majority does not believe this. If you want proof, I can set up a poll?

3. You never once said that you should trade all those depth picks. That's true, but when you say that depth picks are equal value to struggling 20 year olds, you are legitimizing this as a strategy. You are effectively saying that if a GM does this, it still serves the rebuild just as well... show your homework on this.

4. You have continued to evade one very important point that actually breaks your premise: If there is a perfect market between picks and STYOs, then Baertschi should have retained his mid-1st round status. He did not, which means that STYOs have a diminished comparative value to the picks that produced them.

5. You have nothing to support "For me I don't think there is much of a difference between pick 2nd to 7th vs struggling early 20 year old." Anecdotes from analyzing 1 draft is woefully insufficient evidence.

 

[carrotshirt]

The entire front office told us in 2014 that they were not rebuilding, they were retooling on the fly and trying to compete.

With all the TDL garbage they picked up, it’s clear that direction has not changed.

So how can you argue this is a rebuild?

 

[RandV]

Yeah I mean you can go and trade a 2nd and a 3rd for Linden Vey and Andrej Pedan, who will likely give you more than that draft pick would have... or you could just trade those picks for a guy like Jeff Skinner. But I guess Skinner is roughly equal to Vey, Pedan, and a little extra anyways?

 

[Canucks1096]

You do understand that Jake Virtanen and Linden Vey are miles apart, right? Someone like Virtanen is not a reclamation project, he is an NHLer who hasn’t hit his projected potential (and may never). Linden Vey was an AHLer who was a question mark to even play in the NHL when we acquired him. Just like most of Benning’s acquisitions.

Don’t confuse what Benning is doing with guys like Virtanen, Naslund, Bertuzzi, Ladd, etc. They aren’t remotely similar.

8 Players The Canucks Could Sign As Reclamation Projects (Part 2)

Canucks army last year indicated Yakapov was reclamation project. Explain to me how are Bertuzzi Virtanen Naslund and Ladd different are different?

I can tell you as well because reclamation player is kind of subjective. Everyone has some different criterias. It's kind if like Benning said we have 6 to 8 grade A prospects. Some other may think differently.

I don't understand that Vey and Virtanen are miles apart because I don't think they are. Virtanen is considered a 3rd line on this team. Remember Canucks are bad team so is it fair for me to say If Virtanen played on another team he will be on the 4th lime/some healthy scratches/maybe still in the AHL. I will agree Virtanen is better but I don't think it's miles apart.

Seem like you guys seem have clear definition of reclamation player and those players have fit those criteria. But why are we doing That?

All of Benning deals that players are not the same. Some where 1st round picks that struggling to find a nhl roster spot. Some have a nhl spot but were struggling. Some played up to 100 to 200 games and some played less than 20. All my examples are different because Benning deals were different. Take Larsen for example. How is that different from Naslund and Bertuzzi aside that he decided to play khl. First 2 to 3 season Larsen had a roster spot but was struggling like Naslund and Bertuzzi. Ladd and Etem Etem 31 P in 112 games and Ladd 50 P in 150 games before they got traded . Both spent some time in the ahl. Both played 3rd and 4th line. Both struggling to get top line Minutes. Both had 1 solid playoff run. If you include Etem in the argument. Ladd is really similiar. It is more than fair to use Ladd as an example as well.

 

[Canucks1096]

The entire front office told us in 2014 that they were not rebuilding, they were retooling on the fly and trying to compete.

With all the TDL garbage they picked up, it’s clear that direction has not changed.

So how can you argue this is a rebuild?

I Don't understand why you are bringing 2014 in the conversation. Look at the voting. Hardly anyone voted for 2014.

Also the funny thing is some of past post gave there reasons why the Canucks are not rebuilding. There answers were trying to trade for Subban, Lucic and signing Eirksson. They choose use examples 2 years ago instead of recent ones.

 

[CanaFan]

8 Players The Canucks Could Sign As Reclamation Projects (Part 2)

Canucks army last year indicated Yakapov was reclamation project. Explain to me how are Bertuzzi Virtanen Naslund and Ladd different are different?

I can tell you as well because reclamation player is kind of subjective. Everyone has some different criterias. It's kind if like Benning said we have 6 to 8 grade A prospects. Some other may think differently.

I don't understand that Vey and Virtanen are miles apart because I don't think they are. Virtanen is considered a 3rd line on this team. Remember Canucks are bad team so is it fair for me to say If Virtanen played on another team he will be on the 4th lime/some healthy scratches/maybe still in the AHL. I will agree Virtanen is better but I don't think it's miles apart.

Seem like you guys seem have clear definition of reclamation player and those players have fit those criteria. But why are we doing That?

All of Benning deals that players are not the same. Some where 1st round picks that struggling to find a nhl roster spot. Some have a nhl spot but were struggling. Some played up to 100 to 200 games and some played less than 20. All my examples are different because Benning deals were different. Take Larsen for example. How is that different from Naslund and Bertuzzi aside that he decided to play khl. First 2 to 3 season Larsen had a roster spot but was struggling like Naslund and Bertuzzi. Ladd and Etem Etem 31 P in 112 games and Ladd 50 P in 150 games before they got traded . Both spent some time in the ahl. Both played 3rd and 4th line. Both struggling to get top line Minutes. Both had 1 solid playoff run. If you include Etem in the argument. Ladd is really similiar. It is more than fair to use Ladd as an example as well.

Did Benning trade for Yakupov? Why are you using him as an example of anything?

Benning doesn’t trade for underperforming NHLers, he trades for AHLers who haven’t made the jump to NHL yet. Ladd was a full time NHLer when Chicago acquired him at age 22. Etem was not when Benning acquired him at age 23.

Can you honestly not see the difference between Yakupov, Ladd and Etem, Vey, Goldobin, Clendenning, Pedan, Motte, etc? If you can’t then I guess that explains this conversation.

 

[Canucks1096]

There is a difference in how you perceive your position, and how most everyone else is perceiving your position:

1. No one is arguing against a mixed strategy. They are advocating for trades to be a complementary strategy, where pick acquisition is still the primary mode. Less Baertschi type trades is favoured.

2. Your position is that depth picks and struggling 20 year olds are interchangeable. The majority does not believe this. If you want proof, I can set up a poll?

3. You never once said that you should trade all those depth picks. That's true, but when you say that depth picks are equal value to struggling 20 year olds, you are legitimizing this as a strategy. You are effectively saying that if a GM does this, it still serves the rebuild just as well... show your homework on this.

4. You have continued to evade one very important point that actually breaks your premise: If there is a perfect market between picks and STYOs, then Baertschi should have retained his mid-1st round status. He did not, which means that STYOs have a diminished comparative value to the picks that produced them.

5. You have nothing to support "For me I don't think there is much of a difference between pick 2nd to 7th vs struggling early 20 year old." Anecdotes from analyzing 1 draft is woefully insufficient evidence.

1 if you are putting something in a primary mode. To me you are not open to a mix strategy.

2 how would hockeysfuture voting prove anything? It doesn't take a master degree to know most people are against me. It doesn't stop me from debating because it doesn't matter to me how many disagree with me. A forum poll is not going to do anything for me. Correct me if I am wrong but I dont think you are high on Virtanen. A lot people think he can be some top 6 F. So if there is a poll that more people think Virtanen is a top 6 F. Are going to change your mind? Probably not.

3 I did show my work. Hawks is a good example. The rebuild was over in 2009/2010. Ladd Sharp Versteeg all their team gave up on them. Those players all played key roles vs getting a lot of picks. Only Hammajarson on the team that was acquire by a pick traded to them.

Bolland and Keith both were drafted by Hawks own second round pick. Buff by there own 8th round pick.

If you like want more evidences. The evidence is all the rebuilding teams like Pits Edm Jets Leafs they all got better and it wasn't because they got a lot of picks. So if those team traded some picks for struggling early 20 year old. The results won't get worst.


4 Sharp for 3rd round pick, Stralman for 3rd round pick. Bishop for 4th round pick. All these players were worth more than the pick. One example is insufficient evidence. How do you know what Draft pick Baer is worth? I am not saying he is worth a 1st but I don't think anyone thought Hartman will get a 1st


5 user NL and I when we had this discussion I counted 6 top 6/top D in 2012 draft. I told him every draft is a going to be a little different and there are few more argument on other players we decided on 10 players in a draft that would become top 4/top 6

I think we are starting to go around circles. Most likely I am going to end this discussion soon.

 

[Canucks1096]

Did Benning trade for Yakupov? Why are you using him as an example of anything?

Benning doesn’t trade for underperforming NHLers, he trades for AHLers who haven’t made the jump to NHL yet. Ladd was a full time NHLer when Chicago acquired him at age 22. Etem was not when Benning acquired him at age 23.

Can you honestly not see the difference between Yakupov, Ladd and Etem, Vey, Goldobin, Clendenning, Pedan, Motte, etc? If you can’t then I guess that explains this conversation.

Recent news on Andrew Ladd - New York Islanders - Rotoworld.com

Go Dec 2007. Ladd sent to ahl because is not playing well. So he was traded that season. What??????? Full time nhl player get sent down to AHL.

I am talking about Yakapov because you said Naslund and Bertuzzi are not reclamation project. I am proving you wrong. The debate is later picks vs struggling early 20 year old. If you just want to stick with the Canucks transactions so that means Trading for struggling 20 year old is winning so far. Canucks have Baer and later picks. Nobody.

Larsen was in the nhl but he choose to sjgn in Russia. When Etem got traded to the Canucks. He on the nhl roster for the full year. Benning deals are not the same so that why examples are all different.

Etem Larsen are very similiar to Ladd

 

[CanaFan]

Recent news on Andrew Ladd - New York Islanders - Rotoworld.com

Go Dec 2007. Ladd sent to ahl because is not playing well. So he was traded that season. What??????? Full time nhl player get sent down to AHL.

For 2 games.

Jesus ...

I am talking about Yakapov because you said Naslund and Bertuzzi are not reclamation project. I am proving you wrong. The debate is later picks vs struggling early 20 year old. If you just want to stick with the Canucks transactions so that means Trading for struggling 20 year old is winning so far. Canucks have Baer and later picks. Nobody.

Bertuzzi and Naslund were similarish types of reclamation projects to Yakupov.

None of them are similar to the type of player Benning targets. Targeting guys like Naslund, Bertuzzi, even Yakupov is a decent gamble. Targetting the types of guys Benning does is stupid.

Get it?

Larsen was in the nhl but he choose to sjgn in Russia. When Etem got traded to the Canucks. He on the nhl roster for the full year. Benning deals are not the same so that why examples are all different.

Etem Larsen are very similiar to Ladd

Etem had played 22 games in the AHL at age 22 (2014-15) and 50 at age 21 (2013-14). By comparison Ladd hadn’t played in the AHL outside of those 2 games since he was 20. Etem was clearly not an established NHLer to the same degree Ladd was. Etem is also the closest example you have to a young, established NHLer out of all Benning’s trades, which should tell you something.

Larsen was 26 years old when we traded for him. I’m not sure what he is but he’s certainly not a reclamation project in the same sense as you’ve been talking about this entire time.

 

[nuck luck]

If doing that makes you feel better. Okay sure. Are you the type of person that needs the last word in an argument? If you need it? I won't reply if you decide to reply to this message.

AGAIN! hypocrital post...YOU claimed you would not reply and I just thanked you for it.

And of course you replied asking if I'm the type of person who needs to have the last word haha. You obviously replied to have the last word, but again you accuse me of doing something you're guilty of...hypocrite!

Where did I say that I wouldn't reply again? I will gladly point out your errors, false statements and ridiculous claims.

Do yourself a favor and don't reply to this, unless...you need to have the last word

 

[Melvin]

Naslund is a ridiculous example of a guy who had already scored 50 points in a season but was buried on one of the most stacked teams of all time.

Bringing him up is utterly laughable.

 

[CanaFan]

Naslund is a ridiculous example of a guy who had already scored 50 points in a season but was buried on one of the most stacked teams of all time.

Bringing him up is utterly laughable.

Linden Vey, Markus Naslund. No difference there, eh?

 

[Melvin]

Linden Vey, Markus Naslund. No difference there, eh?

Like, linden vey has fewer points in his entire career than Naslund did during the season we traded for him. With whom are you even arguing this one? Anyone who invokes Naslund should be instantly ignored.

 

[Canucks1096]

For 2 games.

Jesus ...



Bertuzzi and Naslund were similarish types of reclamation projects to Yakupov.

None of them are similar to the type of player Benning targets. Targeting guys like Naslund, Bertuzzi, even Yakupov is a decent gamble. Targetting the types of guys Benning does is stupid.

Get it?




Etem had played 22 games in the AHL at age 22 (2014-15) and 50 at age 21 (2013-14). By comparison Ladd hadn’t played in the AHL outside of those 2 games since he was 20. Etem was clearly not an established NHLer to the same degree Ladd was. Etem is also the closest example you have to a young, established NHLer out of all Benning’s trades, which should tell you something.

Larsen was 26 years old when we traded for him. I’m not sure what he is but he’s certainly not a reclamation project in the same sense as you’ve been talking about this entire time.

Okay sure I agree Naslund and Bertuzzi at the time were better. Benning hasn't prove that he can make a trade and acquire that level of potential in a player.

But this part of the conversation started when a user said we could of drafted Kucherov Saad and Subban with later picks. But Benning hasn't been able to prove he can draft like that as well. So we can't use those as examples as well. If I can't use the good examples as my arguments. You guys can't either to make it fair.

So I guess we are to back square one. You still didnt prove to be drafting from 2nd to 7th round is better getting a struggling early 20 year old.

Try again?

Etem has more career playoff goals than Ladd. Had a higher ppg in his second full season. I agree Ladd is better but it is not by much. There is a reason why Carolina gave up on Ladd

 

[Canucks1096]

Naslund is a ridiculous example of a guy who had already scored 50 points in a season but was buried on one of the most stacked teams of all time.

Bringing him up is utterly laughable.

But you need to look at it with some context as well. Naslund played with Lemieux in his first half of the season. Naslund was over ppg. When he was taken off of Lemieux line Naslund had 6 points in 24 games before the trade to Van. Naslund didn't get his first point with the Canucks until the last of the season. Naslund ended that season with 9 point in his last 34 games. Prior to that to season Naslund 15 P in 85. So around 119 game stretch with Lemieux Naslund had 24 points.

So without Lemieux at the time Naslund was at the Etem Granlund Baer level.

 

[Canucks1096]

Like, linden vey has fewer points in his entire career than Naslund did during the season we traded for him. With whom are you even arguing this one? Anyone who invokes Naslund should be instantly ignored.

You don't understand the argument. If you don't mind when you jump Into a debate. If possible can a read a few post of prior so you get caught up what's going on. Thanks