CanucksCorner.com Forums

The GMMG management model

nah, I think bringing in Lombardi as a senior/special advisor would be pretty rad, to help with trades anyways.

Hockey Widow wrote: So much rests on the assumption we could have had McJesus or Eichle or Matthews or Laine, if only Jim had shit the bed more. But we did shit the bed last year and got bumped in the draft. So the argument fails.

Who is making that assumption? Rebuild =/= tanking. For many, it had nothing to do with getting a 1st overall pick (although that would've certainly helped).

Both Toronto and Edmonton got huge boosts to their rebuild because of one player they each drafted. Without that generational franchise type player they are not far removed from Arizona or Colorado or Buffalo or Carolina or New Jersey or.......

The Canucks are arguably in worse shape than all those teams.

Doc is right, we are rebuilding and people can't stand a rebuild.

Seems to me Management are the ones that can't stand even saying "rebuild".

In 2015, Benning's stated plan was apparently:

He has said from day one

* no re-build, it's a transition from the old core to the new core. FAIL

* He wants to remain playoff competitive FAIL

* He wants a team that will compete every game and have a chance to win every night FAIL

*he doesn't want to rush new core players into the NHL but does want to make room each year for some of these youngsters Virtanen/McCann not rushed? + Painfully Generic

* he wants to create a winning culture HARD FAIL

* he wants to protect and shelter the younger players Very mixed results

* he will identify players that he does not see fitting the long term plan and move them out Or let them walk as UFA

He has said

* no tear down full rebuild True, a slow, painful, unintentional march to the basement instead

* no lean years of not making the playoffs FAIL

* transition at every position Generic, imagine advocating the inverse

* he will move vets to make room for young players Generic, imagine advocating the inverse

* he will ask players with NTC to waive if he deems it the right move. True

People like Doc are assuming that we're in the midst of one because they look at the standings and think this is part of the plan. I think the original plan was closer to the one above. The one being peddled now, that this is all some sort of long term super-plan, is nonsense. More likely, management (and/or ownership) has been forced to realize their original plan was a complete pipe-dream.

Hockey Widow wrote:
Doc is right, we are rebuilding and people can't stand a rebuild.

This gets repeated on here constantly yet it is never backed up. Who are these people that can't handle a rebuild? I've been screaming for one for five years .

mirror Bubbles

Topper wrote:mirror Bubbles

Straw man Beard man

Topper wrote:mirror Bubbles

Hey Top, why don't you and Doc once in a while actually answer the question being asked?

Can the fans handle a rebuild, that depends on what handling means?

In a city where housing costs are crazy it is not like people have a lot of disposable income so why would they spend the $$$ the Nucks charge to watch what we saw this year. There is minimal corporate head offices in Vancouver so not like they are buying tickets.

Vancouver also has a million other things to do so people are wise where they spend the money.

Every team except a few will see fans leave when the team sucks unless they have something to cheer for. This is not unique to Vancouver.

We've been rebuilding since Benning got here. Every year, he's turned over 1/4 of the roster. Now, after 3 seasons, we have 4 players left from 2011. That, my friends, is a RE-BUILD!

Now, what does this mean to say "fans can't handle a re-build? What is it to handle a re-build?

One aspect is filling the arena every night. Even the Coilers in their tiny Rexall Place couldn't maintain a sellout streak through their re-build, and they're probably the highwater mark for a fanbase "handling" a re-build. I would argue that it didn't do the franchise any good to have such a loyal fanbase go along with a terrible terrible hockey team for so long, but if that's what it means to "handle" a re-build, then Edmonton is probably the prime example.

Another aspect of "handling a re-build" is patience with management and not panicking after every move or non-move the GM makes. This is where the Vancouver fans really get a failing grade. If you go through a Re-build, there will be pain. If you tank, there will be pain. For a re-building team, as with any team, some trades and draft picks won't work out.

I would say to handle a re-build, you have to look at the ability to see the long-term big picture. The big picture shows that Benning has accumulated more good young prospects than at any time in this franchise's history. He's taken the oldest team in the league and made it one of the youngest (once the Sedins retire, probably the youngest).

Meanwhile, large swaths of the fanbase on this board and calling in to Team 1040 are still fixated on giving up a 2nd rounder for Linden Vey.

ESQ wrote:We've been rebuilding since Benning got here. Every year, he's turned over 1/4 of the roster. Now, after 3 seasons, we have 4 players left from 2011. That, my friends, is a RE-BUILD!

Now, what does this mean to say "fans can't handle a re-build? What is it to handle a re-build?

One aspect is filling the arena every night. Even the Coilers in their tiny Rexall Place couldn't maintain a sellout streak through their re-build, and they're probably the highwater mark for a fanbase "handling" a re-build. I would argue that it didn't do the franchise any good to have such a loyal fanbase go along with a terrible terrible hockey team for so long, but if that's what it means to "handle" a re-build, then Edmonton is probably the prime example.

Another aspect of "handling a re-build" is patience with management and not panicking after every move or non-move the GM makes. This is where the Vancouver fans really get a failing grade. If you go through a Re-build, there will be pain. If you tank, there will be pain. For a re-building team, as with any team, some trades and draft picks won't work out.

I would say to handle a re-build, you have to look at the ability to see the long-term big picture. The big picture shows that Benning has accumulated more good young prospects than at any time in this franchise's history. He's taken the oldest team in the league and made it one of the youngest (once the Sedins retire, probably the youngest).

Meanwhile, large swaths of the fanbase on this board and calling in to Team 1040 are still fixated on giving up a 2nd rounder for Linden Vey.

+1

ESQ wrote:The big picture shows that Benning has accumulated more good young prospects than at any time in this franchise's history.

Is that your own personal assessment of the Canucks' prospect pool, or can you cite some outside expert observer ?

(Not to imply that there's anything wrong with just posting your opinion, but I wonder if the opinion is widely shared outside this board.)

TDA Rum wrote:

ESQ wrote:We've been rebuilding since Benning got here. Every year, he's turned over 1/4 of the roster. Now, after 3 seasons, we have 4 players left from 2011. That, my friends, is a RE-BUILD!

Now, what does this mean to say "fans can't handle a re-build? What is it to handle a re-build?

One aspect is filling the arena every night. Even the Coilers in their tiny Rexall Place couldn't maintain a sellout streak through their re-build, and they're probably the highwater mark for a fanbase "handling" a re-build. I would argue that it didn't do the franchise any good to have such a loyal fanbase go along with a terrible terrible hockey team for so long, but if that's what it means to "handle" a re-build, then Edmonton is probably the prime example.

Another aspect of "handling a re-build" is patience with management and not panicking after every move or non-move the GM makes. This is where the Vancouver fans really get a failing grade. If you go through a Re-build, there will be pain. If you tank, there will be pain. For a re-building team, as with any team, some trades and draft picks won't work out.

I would say to handle a re-build, you have to look at the ability to see the long-term big picture. The big picture shows that Benning has accumulated more good young prospects than at any time in this franchise's history. He's taken the oldest team in the league and made it one of the youngest (once the Sedins retire, probably the youngest).

Meanwhile, large swaths of the fanbase on this board and calling in to Team 1040 are still fixated on giving up a 2nd rounder for Linden Vey.

+1

-8

Fans are also ticked about constantly coughing up and extra picks and long term bloated contracts to average players like Eriksson and Sutter. It's called death by a thousand cuts.

ESQ wrote:We've been rebuilding since Benning got here. Every year, he's turned over 1/4 of the roster. Now, after 3 seasons, we have 4 players left from 2011. That, my friends, is a RE-BUILD!

Now, what does this mean to say "fans can't handle a re-build? What is it to handle a re-build?

One aspect is filling the arena every night. Even the Coilers in their tiny Rexall Place couldn't maintain a sellout streak through their re-build, and they're probably the highwater mark for a fanbase "handling" a re-build. I would argue that it didn't do the franchise any good to have such a loyal fanbase go along with a terrible terrible hockey team for so long, but if that's what it means to "handle" a re-build, then Edmonton is probably the prime example.

Another aspect of "handling a re-build" is patience with management and not panicking after every move or non-move the GM makes. This is where the Vancouver fans really get a failing grade. If you go through a Re-build, there will be pain. If you tank, there will be pain. For a re-building team, as with any team, some trades and draft picks won't work out.

I would say to handle a re-build, you have to look at the ability to see the long-term big picture. The big picture shows that Benning has accumulated more good young prospects than at any time in this franchise's history. He's taken the oldest team in the league and made it one of the youngest (once the Sedins retire, probably the youngest).

Meanwhile, large swaths of the fanbase on this board and calling in to Team 1040 are still fixated on giving up a 2nd rounder for Linden Vey.

Again, he didn't come in here with a stated aim of rebuilding. He came in to "transition" but "remain competitive". If he had come in here and said "we're going to rebuild", people would still be concerned about his execution (ie Vey/Sutter/Gudbranson/Eriksson aren't rebuilding moves), but at least he'd be correct when it came to roster assessment. The fact he's tried to do it both ways (and his moves back this up) supports the notion he's never intended to rebuild.

People aren't focusing on the Linden Vey deal in isolation, they point to it as the worst example of his tendency to trade picks/prospects for older players, filling his "age gap" with players that are more stop-gap than new-core. Again, this goes against traditional rebuilding models, and plenty of ink has been spilled at the cost of acquiring these stop-gaps vs. the players they replaced and the teams talent level at the end of it all. If a potato was the GM of your Vancouver Canucks, we'd likely be in a similar spot (ie the basement), but have more prospects to show for it.

As far as "handling a rebuild", if simply surviving one (like Edmonton has done with the paper bags and jersey tossing) is considered handling it, we should have nothing to worry about.

Ronning's Ghost wrote: Is that your own personal assessment of the Canucks' prospect pool, or can you cite some outside expert observer ?

(Not to imply that there's anything wrong with just posting your opinion, but I wonder if the opinion is widely shared outside this board.)

Fair point. Not that I'm endorsing HF and HF's rankings by any stretch, but just to gauge your question of whether my view is shared outside of Vancouver, HF's fall ranking for this year is the highest its been since 2004 (the furthest back I could find on their rinky-dink website):
2016 - 14
2015 - 18
2014 - 24
2013 - 26
2012 - 29
2011 - 29
2007 - 15 (on strength of Schneider, Edler, Bourdon, Patrick White LMFAO and Grabner!)
2006 - 26
2005 - 24
2004 - 23

Well the team is rebuilding, isn't that what you want?

Started too late you say? Well when JB first got hired it seemed pretty clear it wasn't to tear down and rebuild, but even then JB saw that the team had a glaring weakness of prospects and young guys, therefore he traded some picks to get some young guys who were further along in their development, players that should have been there if the prior GM knew how to draft and trade assets for picks/prospects before the team became stale & crusty.

In any case now that we are in a full rebuild I'm happy to have a GM that knows how to scout/draft well, that's what a rebuild is all about, selling veterans, acquiring picks and prospects, for which Benning has done a commendable job ala Hansen and Burrows deals.

I still think hiring another assistant GM or senior advisor would be beneficial if they can work well together, lessen the load a tad for JB.

Blob Mckenzie wrote: Fans are also ticked about constantly coughing up and extra picks and long term bloated contracts to average players like Eriksson and Sutter. It's called death by a thousand cuts.

How are Eriksson and Sutter holding back the re-build?

The team is still incorporating more rookies than at any time in its history, and still getting a lottery pick, and still improving its talent pipeline.

Its also called, two steps forward, one step back.

Again, he didn't come in here with a stated aim of rebuilding. He came in to "transition" but "remain competitive". If he had come in here and said "we're going to rebuild", people would still be concerned about his execution (ie Vey/Sutter/Gudbranson/Eriksson aren't rebuilding moves), but at least he'd be correct when it came to roster assessment. The fact he's tried to do it both ways (and his moves back this up) supports the notion he's never intended to rebuild.

While doing the Vey/Sutter/Gudbranson/Eriksson moves, he still turned over 75% of the roster in 3 years, got younger, and developed more rookies than any other GM.

Vey was 22, and almost tied Horvat for team rookie scoring.

Sutter was 26 and locked up to age 32. They traded an older player, a scrub dman prospect, and a 2RP for a 3RP.

Gudbranson was 24 and top-4 d, and will hopefully be locked up through his prime years. It was a steep price, for sure - McCann, 2nd and a 4th.

I would say that all of those moves were consistent with a re-build. Look at Vey - they only gave up a 2nd. Would you have preferred they left his spot open for some other prospect to take his place? Unfortunately, the cupboard was completely bare at that time, and there was nobody in the organization to take that spot.

LA received that 2nd-rounder - how's their re-build coming along?

I'll grant you Eriksson, however looking at the UFA forward markets in the coming years, and the fact that the only thing given up is cap space, I can live with it. If Eriksson continues his production, then it will be a disaster.

Again, in three years - 75% roster turned over, 5 rookies becoming roster players, plus Boeser, Goldobin, and Virtanen with sniffs at the NHL, 2 lottery-picks, made the playoffs once.

After year 4, there's a pretty good chance that only one D-man will remain from the team Benning inherited, 3 more rookies are developed, only 1 or 2 players over 30, and the team still has Gaudette, Juolevi, Demko, and Dahlen in the pipeline.

That's a rebuild.

They aren't smooth, they aren't pretty, and every move and pick doesn't always work out. I think people's reactions to the inevitable uncertainty is what makes others say "Vancouver can't handle a re-build".