The Rebuild...

[SKYO]

Simmer down, all it is JB won't brute force them out, but Linden just said of hinting around that the team basically is rebuilding (without saying it complicity).

I say if the team is still bottom of the league in February, at least one or two vets will give their agent a call to give the ok to deal them to a contender.

[nuckster]

Simmer down, all it is JB won't brute force them out, but Linden just said of hinting around that the team basically is rebuilding (without saying it complicity).

I say if the team is still bottom of the league in February, at least one or two vets will give their agent a call to give the ok to deal them to a contender.

Yeah i thought after-wards that i was a tad intense. It ocured to me too that the upside to the tone that Benning is taking is that it sets up a positive climate for players considering a future in Van. You have to admit though that JB hasnt acquired very many picks during his time here.

[Topper]

Jason Garrison

[Mickey107]

I'm afraid it's going to take more than 2 or 3 years of drafting high in the first round to really put this team in a serious contender role.
The game against New Jersey was very exposing and all the band-aids and duct tape showed.
First of all, I don't think that this Vancouver market has the patience that Toronto or Edmonton does, not 7 or 8 years.
We are really grasping a straws right now, trying to convince ourselves, it will get better.
Time maybe for JB to look outside the box.
A while back, I asked who the agent for Tryamkin was and HW posted the name.
Maybe some calls to people like that is in order. Something along the lines of "Find me a mean Russian dog with some hands and I'll give him a look" That's the kind of outside the box I'm talking about. You never know.
Look how Edler was found. We need something like that.
I was a huge supporter of Virtanen last year but it's falling through. I know he hasn't been in Utica long but indications are he's not even trying, not good!
We can't put all our aspirations on guys like Rodin making it big. That was just a hopeful idea. If that knee is still swelling after 11 months, it may need additional work.
I could go on and on but the long and short of it is we should be OK in goal. Our defense has the potential to be really good. We are in bad shape up front and that isn't going to be easy to fix.
You can't just go and rip up the back end to bolster the front!
Eriksson is softer and less dynamic than I thought he would be, at least so far. Seems way laid back.

The first thing I would do is get an NHL coach and the sooner the better. Gallant or Hatley, IMO, would be better than what we have. The players need a new voice very badly.
Again; Look outside the box for something up front.
Many people don't seem too concerned about the building being half empty. I am. It concerns me greatly.
We absolutely have to find a way to make this market a desirable destination for players to want to come to again.

[SKYO]

Simmer down, all it is JB won't brute force them out, but Linden just said of hinting around that the team basically is rebuilding (without saying it complicity).

I say if the team is still bottom of the league in February, at least one or two vets will give their agent a call to give the ok to deal them to a contender.

Yeah i thought after-wards that i was a tad intense. It ocured to me too that the upside to the tone that Benning is taking is that it sets up a positive climate for players considering a future in Van. You have to admit though that JB hasnt acquired very many picks during his time here.

True, all I expect is just one trade towards February when the team should still be bottom five in the league, Burrows will OK a deal to the East to a contender to move on and he'll probably sign out there July 1st anyways.

And finally JB will acquire a 2nd rounder back ahah

[Todd Bersnoozi]

Agreed but what does Aqua man think?

WWAD: What Would Aqua-man Do?

[Chef Boi RD]

Boeser the man child is pretty much guaranteed a spot on the team next year. He's got a good head on his shoulders and is a future captain type. After two years in college this kid will be more than ready to step in next season. Juolevi the same thing as Boeser, very mature and smart and stable, I do not see him going back to London. After stewing in the minors for a year, Jake should be ready as well. Throw in a healthy Rodin with Boeser, Juolevi, Virtanen along with Stecher, Tryamkin, Horvat, Hutton along with mid age players with lots of years left in Markstrom, Tanev, Baertschi, Sutter, Gudbranson, Gaunce and Granlund this team will start to gather up the local interest again. Not to mention, Lockwood and Brisbios and Demko and a high 2017 1st round draft pick to get the fan base excited again. The retool will show it's purdy little face next year and the city will be Canuck group hugging galore

[Island Nucklehead]

Boeser the man child is pretty much guaranteed a spot on the team next year. He's got a good head on his shoulders and is a future captain type. After two years in college this kid will be more than ready to step in next season. Juolevi the same thing as Boeser, very mature and smart and stable, I do not see him going back to London. After stewing in the minors for a year, Jake should be ready as well. Throw in a healthy Rodin with Boeser, Juolevi, Virtanen along with Stecher, Tryamkin, Horvat, Hutton along with mid age players with lots of years left in Markstrom, Tanev, Baertschi, Sutter, Gudbranson, Gaunce and Granlund this team will start to gather up the local interest again. Not to mention, Lockwood and Brisbios and Demko and a high 2017 1st round draft pick to get the fan base excited again. The retool will show it's purdy little face next year and the city will be Canuck group hugging galore

How much Molly did you ingest prior to writing this love-fest?

[Chef Boi RD]

Boeser the man child is pretty much guaranteed a spot on the team next year. He's got a good head on his shoulders and is a future captain type. After two years in college this kid will be more than ready to step in next season. Juolevi the same thing as Boeser, very mature and smart and stable, I do not see him going back to London. After stewing in the minors for a year, Jake should be ready as well. Throw in a healthy Rodin with Boeser, Juolevi, Virtanen along with Stecher, Tryamkin, Horvat, Hutton along with mid age players with lots of years left in Markstrom, Tanev, Baertschi, Sutter, Gudbranson, Gaunce and Granlund this team will start to gather up the local interest again. Not to mention, Lockwood and Brisbios and Demko and a high 2017 1st round draft pick to get the fan base excited again. The retool will show it's purdy little face next year and the city will be Canuck group hugging galore

How much Molly did you ingest prior to writing this love-fest?[/quote

None Eeyore

[Mickey107]

I shouldn't say anything, (never know who's reading), But:

I do see some genius this year.
Why is Troy here and not in Utica?
Well, yes, he's earned it with his play and effort, for sure he has.

What a ringing endorsement for "other" talented college kids to want to play in the NHL and make Vancouver a home! (sooner than later).

I'd say that gets a few brownie points for a genuine "genius" plan.

[Soapy]

You are all way .....
what happened to the redwings plan?
that was the destination every team wanted.

[Hockey Widow]

In the absence of making a trade or two on D I see Juolevi returning to junior next season. He isn't eligible for the AHL and he needs to play. The London program is a good one that Benning doesn't have a problem with. Could he play in the Finnish elite league for a season?

Without a trade, maybe two trades, I just don't see room for him yet. Now if we let Larsen walk, trade Sbisa and one of Tanev/Edler, we have room.

Boeser I think will turn pro. If UND does not make the final four I can see him finishing the year with the Canucks, handful of games, to burn a year on his ELC.

I'm ok with keeping Virtanen in Utica this year and next if need be. Now that we have sent him down let's not rush him back. Let's make sure he is ready for the men's league.

But we do have some hope in the minors and juniors, which is refreshing.

[UWSaint]

I thought I’d weigh in on the rebuild stuff.

I am in the anti-tank category because I don’t see any evidence that it is reliably more successful than a retool. One can even fail in tanking by players outperforming expectations and finishing too high to qualify for the lottery, to say nothing of getting a bad draw in the lottery. We all know that repeated years of high draft picks don't guarantee success (Oilers, Avs). On the other hand, the Blackhawks really did shed their roster in the post-lockout year (2005-2006) and it helped them perform poorly enough to draft Toews & Kane and add them to 2003 first rounder Seabrook, who, as a defenseman, was going to mature at the same time.

There are many tools to a successful rebuild – good drafting (which is made easier by higher picks), good asset management, and luck, either with later round picks or trades where disappointments become valuable. And that’s just personnel. Getting the right personnel is necessary but insufficient. Coaching and player development are also needed.

Let’s look at the late 1990’s rebuild of the Canucks to see what happened. First off, the Canucks in the mid-to-late 90s were ideally poised for a rebuild. They had great players who didn’t play great together. Too many “star” forwards, poor defensive personnel or commitment at a time the league was in a defensive era (and the games were called that way), and really subpar netminding. It was a team that had good players, but couldn’t win. You would have to consider the WCE era as a successful rebuild, for while the Canucks didn’t sniff at the cup, they were a top 10 team in the league and a run was certainly conceivable.

To go from the Messier-era to the Naslund era, the Canucks turned aging stars into quality, younger NHL players; succeeded in one draft (but mostly failed); and got lucky.

(1) Turning assets into younger assets. Bure (with Hedican and first round disappointment Ference) becomes Jovanovski; Mogilny becomes Morrison; Linden becomes Bertuzzi. Those were 3 core players, without which the team would have been terrible. The point is not to say that the Canucks "won" each of these deals, but the only quality asset the Canucks totally wasted was Messier himself.

(2) The draft. The WCE Canucks got a second line in part from doing poorly (3rd overall pick) and in part from asset management (Linden trade got the Islanders 1st and McCabe, who were used to get the 2d overall pick) ... Daniel and Henrik Sedin. They weren't core components at the beginning of the playoff runs (though their North American arrival coincided with it), but by the time Henrik matured in 2001-2002 (Daniel took another year), 2 of the top 6 was locked down and over the next few years they went from "not being a liability" (due to good possession numbers) to being an asset (scoring) to being top line players (the end of the WCE era) to being elite players (Art Ross trophies). As with Seabrook’s maturation, the WCE Canucks benefited from the development of a pre-rebuild mid first rounder, 1994’s Matthias Ohlund. What is remarkable is how *poorly* the Canucks drafted in their late 90s bad team era – Brad Ference? Bryan Allen? (I can’t remember what happened to the Canucks original 2000 pick the season where they would have picked about 10th overall, but they selected Nathan Smith with the late first rounder they had left). The best higher draft players during that era outside of the Sedins were NHLers but replaceable types (Chubarov, Allen). For posters that don’t remember Chubarov and Allen, think a more mature Brandon Gaunce and Luca Sbisa).

(3) Luck. The Canucks didn’t luck out with any late round gems, but they got a couple of functional pieces (Sopel, Cooke, maybe Ruutu was functional, but certainly insane….). But it was in the trade category where the Canucks got luckiest. Markus Naslund was just another underachieving round pick who was supposed to add offense but had limited downside utility. So the Canucks traded their own first round bust to the Penguins and voila!

There are a couple points to draw from this. First, the draft doesn't have to be the key, and where it helped for the Canucks, it only did so because of proper asset management (Linden – and while we may all feel bad for the True Captain – it was his trade that put in place pieces for not only the WCE era, but the Vigneault era). Second, don't think a 5th overall defenseman in going to be ready for a rebuild that happens in the next 3 years. Guys that can be top pairing defensemen are extremely valuable; true #1's (which the Canucks haven't had during any of their recent peaks) are possibly the best assets in the game. But they don't get there as quickly as forwards.

In this era, the Canucks asset management has been pretty miserable. Most of that is due to the rise of the NTC and iffy contracts, which considerably depressed the value of some players (Luongo, Kesler) and made it so others couldn't be moved when it was clear the time to do so had arrived and they still held value (Hamhuis). So far, asset management has got the Canucks one player that is nearly certain to be an above average player: Bo Horvat. And to get him, the Canucks did NOT hold onto Schneider too long and Schneider was unhampered by a NTC. Hmmmmmm. I have hopes for Gudbrandson as well; he could be a solid top 4 player for a long time or a pretender who gets top 4 minutes. The jury’s out on that, but the likelihood of him becoming a true #1 (24+ minutes, asset on PP or offense generally, SH reliable, top line match up) is next to zero.

In terms of getting lucky, the Canucks have taken plenty of shots in the category of trading for Naslunds – i.e., the underachievers who find a second life. First rounders Baertschi and Etem and 2d rounders Granlund and Vey. All were scouted early to have top 6 potential and their early careers weren’t getting them there. (exception of possibly Granlund, who I believe was also seen as having downside (bottom 6) utility). I think its clear that none are going to flourish like Naslund; and while we've seen some value from Baertschi and Granlund, I fear it is because when you have ice time to give they will do SOMETHING with it but haven't earned it.

Where the Canucks might get lucky is with late round picks or undrafted free agent pick ups: Hutton, Stetcher, Tryamkin, and of course Tanev, though he’s kind of a generation gap guy.

The drafting has been okay given the draft slots, but setting aside Horvat (who is in the asset management category), none of those high ceiling guys that we've seen look like they will pan out. The organization was correct to capitalize on McCann's perceived value (I don't think that is coming back to bite the Canucks) and made due with Shinkaurk's mediocre development curve. Virtanen is still young enough to not yet be a reclamation project, but there are many bust indicators there. Whether the drafting has been good enough -- and whether this team has another peak in 3 or 4 years -- depends largely on Boeser and Demko coming far closer to their ceilings than what should reasonably be expected. Would a bust-aided top-flight draft pick help here? Yes, it could. But totally sucking for a couple of years might also lead to an exodus of the (limited) success stories the Canucks have have.

At the end of the day, I think the best way to keep competitive is to keep the core small and shed off helpful players while they are valuable and while the team is still competitive. Shedding off helpful players frees up roster spots for better values (to manage the cap), young players (take a shot at playing with the big boys and see who sticks), or turns assets into picks or prospects that can be used to supplement a core or rotate the core rather than build a brand new core.

The Canucks failed to do that when they were deep, when they knew that 5 years from when the Sedins were 31 they would be 36…. Instead they made guys like Bieksa, Burrows, Hamhuis, and Higgins part of the core. Those decisions pre-dated the current regime. Maybe Hamhuis deserved the designation, but the others are guys that you might like to have on your team, but there are lots of other guys like those guys. (Higgins, well, Higgins on a 4 year deal was baffling at the time).

Two more points. One, the vets on this team are not clogging up time for the kids. There isn’t one player in the system whose development would be better in the NHL than in the AHL or pushed up a line when they haven’t earned it. Last year in the NHL didn’t really help McCann or Virtanen (contrast with the year Kesler spent in the AHL during the 2004-05 lockout that did him wonders developmentally). I buy the argument that it is better to have the Sedins and Burrows around for the kids, but let’s also not forget that Burrows has zero value outside the organization (now, someone could throw the Canucks a 4th rounder at the deadline, big whoop) and unless and until the Sedins ask for a trade, they have zero value as trade bait. One can’t blame this group’s management for not finding a spot for Hamhuis – they can blame his NTC. Remember, he did the same thing with Nashville..... Its like marrying the girl you met when she was married.... They got rid of Kesler and Bieksa as soon as they were able for as much value as could be expected given the limitations on their contracts/abilities.

Two, the only real non-sideways assets the Canucks truly have to move are Alex Edler and Chris Tanev. Possibly Ryan Miller can bring a B level prospect and a 2d or late (and therefore crapshoot) 1st from a contender who loses a goalie and is absolutely desperate. (By non-sideways, I mean a guy that can bring a return of a prospect or high enough pick – Granlund, Baertschi, etc., these guys aren’t getting you a first round pick and these guys aren’t getting you a prospect better than the ones we’ve dealt (McCann, Shinkaurk)). What we’ve seen is that taking these guys out of the lineup doesn’t equal tanking, and that begs the question, how do the Canucks tank exactly? Getting rid of the Sedins? I suppose that might do it, but I don’t think the secondary effects are worth the chance that this would *possibly* improve the Canucks draft position and they *might* draft well.

Put it this way. The Canucks are not good. They aren’t terrible, but they are a bottom 10 team from a talent perspective that could squeak into the playoffs or just as easily wind up in the bottom 3 without making another move. I don’t think that they can really guarantee themselves of the downside without stifling the will. So let it play out. If you can get a good return for Edler (decent potential for top 6 on a decent team) or Tanev (high potential for top 6 on a decent team and high floor (NHL) + one or two more volatile prospects higher round picks), have your ears open. As the deadline nears, shop one or both of them (and obviously Miller).

But to all who are passionate about the debate – it doesn’t really matter. If this rebuild fails, it wasn’t because of what will be done in the next few months, but what was done in the drunken aftermath of a Stanley Cup run.

We can't change that.

[UWSaint]

One more thing. If the issue is needing to add another forward into who could be in the top 6 in a couple of years, the Canucks should look to make a traditional hockey trade move one of our maturing NHL level D with a not-yet-achieved-but-still-achievable ceiling for an equivalent forward. Its a move that might make a lot of sense normally, but it is complicated by the expansion draft. My guess is that there are going to be a few teams out there hurting on D after the expansion draft; the way the rules work and with the traditional tenure of defensemen, the Knights will be getting more quality defensemen than quality forwards -- any team with a legit top 4 who cannot all be protected is in jeopardy.

The expansion draft is going to make for curious trades this deadline and make for a ton of offseason movement. That's the time to make a hockey deal, I think. Ben Hutton would be my first on the block (Sbisa, well, I am assuming no one really values him more than an equivalent FA that can be had for a similar salary). Hutton for value, not because I dislike him. But I am not sold on him long term and I think there is the potential that other teams might overvalue him.

[Hockey Widow]

Excellent post UW!!

Look how Chicago churns over their lineup every year, yes mostly by nessecity, but they still manage to remain a contender. They sell high, draft well, and get some decent prospects when selling.

A point on Benning not asking his NTC players to waive, he didn't mention those on modified deals in that talk. He was talking more so about the twins, Burrows and Edler.

And if Burrows keeps playing the way he is he may earn a one year deal.